Re: Types, packages & objects : the good old naming conventions question (without religious ware)

["Hibou57 (Yannick Duchêne)" <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr>]

On 31 oct, 06:30, Hibou57 (Yannick Duchêne) <yannick_duch...@yahoo.fr>
wrote:
> [...] simply because any instance, may be subject to become
> a typical representation of an abstraction as soon as it is notices
> that it has finally some property which makes it different from others
This make me think that the natural language is better at analysis
than it is at expressing static architecture based on formalism after
analysis.

this is not surprising, from thousands years, we are more busy at
trying to understand things, come back on a previous understanding and
reworking it (this is why it is useful to be able to have a thing
which is both things). The natural language is after all perhaps
better at always-moving things rather than at well-elaborated-and-
expected-stable things.

Hey boys and girls... you know what ? I think the natural language is
an untyped loosy structured language 8-| We should rework it in
whooole and send a long spicy disclaimer to its author.