From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Nov 1 14:41:31 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F1EB16A4CE for ; Sat, 1 Nov 2003 14:41:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.broadpark.no (mail.broadpark.no [217.13.4.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B927D43FE1 for ; Sat, 1 Nov 2003 14:41:28 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from des@des.no) Received: from smtp.des.no (37.80-203-228.nextgentel.com [80.203.228.37]) by mail.broadpark.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5B7579645; Sat, 1 Nov 2003 23:41:25 +0100 (MET) Received: by smtp.des.no (Pony Express, from userid 666) id 893369C22F; Sat, 1 Nov 2003 23:41:25 +0100 (CET) Received: from dwp.des.no (dwp.des.no [10.0.0.4]) by smtp.des.no (Pony Express) with ESMTP id 954BB9C0BE; Sat, 1 Nov 2003 23:41:21 +0100 (CET) Received: by dwp.des.no (Postfix, from userid 2602) id 7F16BB823; Sat, 1 Nov 2003 23:41:21 +0100 (CET) To: Greg Pavelcak References: <3FA301F6.2010208@potentialtech.com> <20031101175942.GA2082@online.fr> <20031101205412.GA15226@bishop.my.domain> From: des@des.no (Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?q?Sm=F8rgrav?=) Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2003 23:41:21 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20031101205412.GA15226@bishop.my.domain> (Greg Pavelcak's message of "Sat, 1 Nov 2003 15:54:12 -0500") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.090024 (Oort Gnus v0.24) Emacs/21.3 (berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on dsa.des.no X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: How do hackers drive? X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Non technical items related to the community List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2003 22:41:31 -0000 Greg Pavelcak writes: > I'm a non-programmer. Is it the OO languages that talk about > "methods" when it looks like they're talking about something like > functions, or is that something else? > > Choosing an appropriate technical term can be that difficult, but > it's downright silly to choose a weird term for something that > already has a perfectly good name. I can't stand to read the stuff. > Every time I see "method" it pisses me off. "function" is not a perfectly good name. "procedure" or "subroutine" is better in most cases (except when the function actually is a function), and it is necessary to differentiate "methods" which operate on objects from "procedures" which don't. Formal type theory provides us with better and more precise terms than "method", but you'd probably like them even less (ever heard of "generators" and "observers"?) DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav - des@des.no