David Freeman david_freeman@rocketmail.com writes:
we think a has the facilities to do x y and y b inherites the functionaility from a and adds p q r and s OO is better for modern software.
Some people may, but I see a process as a composition of processes carried out by actors. Imperative-OO is just so much overhead to this viewpoint.
Anyway, imperative-OO still has "do this, do that" at its core...
Read UML in a nutshell and get back to me, and also phone the poor sod and give him the Job, he sounds like he may know what he's talking about. Formally proving programs, nice :o)
Sure, he'd be good for a job, but not a job where we needed someone to design applications to an already-defined specification and deal with a large backlog of data to be processed. Horse for courses ;-) At the very least, he was off-beam with his pitch.
Good code is code which meets the needs of the application and doesn't crash. [...]
Being written is a prerequisite for these.
No its not, being written well is the prerequisite.
How is being written not a prereq for being written well? ;-)
You obviously aren't in the camp of designing bugs out of programs.
Yes, but how can you design without prototypes? Show me someone who can make things without ever experimenting and I'll show you some angels on the head of a pin...
I'm no expert in this sort fo stuff, but I do know that the whole relational Paradigm and the OO paradigm are very closely tide in,
ARF!