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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 10d15b,97482af7429a6a62
X-Google-Attributes: gid10d15b,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,97482af7429a6a62
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Thread: 109fba,97482af7429a6a62
X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public
From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: C++ not OOP? (Was: Language Efficiency
Date: 1995/04/20
Message-ID: <dewar.798394059@gnat>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 101281747
references: <dewar.797512974@gnat> <3n3o9c$cud@atlantis.utmb.edu>
 <3n43p0$ehs@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> <3n5oup$g2s@atlantis.utmb.edu>
 <3n5r92$95@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>
organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.cobol
Date: 1995-04-20T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

when people argue about whether something is pure or not, they must have
ulterior motives. You can't believe that people put this much energy into
arguing about something that is just terminology.

what is going on here is the underlying reasoning

  x is pure
  pure is good
  therefore x is good

at least this syllogism doesn't have a divided middle, but it's really
pretty thin! Why not argue about specific technical features, whose presence
or absence is objectively determinable, and then discuss why or why not
you think the features is a GOOD THING!