From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,8a602a7f65bebaea X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-10-19 11:41:18 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!wn13feed!wn11feed!worldnet.att.net!207.217.77.102!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3DB1A736.7000506@acm.org> From: Jeffrey Carter User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020530 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Abstract methods in ADA95 References: <20021017-143635-828420@foorum.com> <3DAF0ECE.7080204@acm.org> <3DB0785A.1040304@acm.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 18:40:29 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.184.104.40 X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net X-Trace: newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net 1035052829 63.184.104.40 (Sat, 19 Oct 2002 11:40:29 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 11:40:29 PDT Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:29951 Date: 2002-10-19T18:40:29+00:00 List-Id: SteveD wrote: > "Jeffrey Carter" wrote in message > news:3DB0785A.1040304@acm.org... > >>There are no "methods", either in abstract terminology or actual >>programming languages. AFAIKS, "method" is a new name for an old concept >>made up to muddy the waters by people who were trying to present old >>concepts as something new that they'd invented. > > Still not convinced? Try: > > http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=method Four fifths of your references disagree with you. > > I don't know what you consider new. I learned this terminolgy in the early > 80's, in computing thats a long time ago (man that makes me feel old). As > for new names for old concepts... that's exactly how our language works. It > is dynamic. For example the term "gay" used in the Flinstones theme has a > completely different meaning than what it has today. Still not convinced? Try "subprogram" at http://www.m-w.com/dictionary It dates from 1947. Coming up with a new word for the same thing more than 30 years later counts as new in my book. I first encountered subprogram in the 1970s when I learned Pascal. Yes, the English language is malleable and ambiguous, but in software engineering precise and unambiguous are the keys to success. Look at the space shuttle software (1 error in 400 KLOC): Precise, unambiguous specifications are an important part of their success. To discuss technical matters we should not use ambiguous terms. Inventing new terms for well established, existing ideas adds ambiguity. In software engineering, that is irresponsible, if not unethical. Using such terms compounds that irresponsibility. I was appalled at "method" when I first encountered it in the early 1980s and I continue to refuse to use it. Besides, I never get such long, interesting conversations when I agree with people. -- Jeff Carter "Sheriff murdered, crops burned, stores looted, people stampeded, and cattle raped." Blazing Saddles