jordan@titn.TITN (Jordan Bortz) (10/26/87)
<<<FLAME ON FORCE 10>>>>
I'm sick and tired of wading through countless object oriented documents,
each one attempting to outdo the other in terms of raping the word
paradigm.
For some reason, OO programmers everywhere have seen the word paradigm
written somewhere, think that it means model, or way-about-thinking-about-
programming (which it does not), and, without bothering to look it up,
splay it around documents for our edification anb obfusication.
Bobrow & Stefik, in the LOOPS manual (1983, Xerox Parc) are particularly
gleeful abusers of the word paradigm. In fact, you only have to wade
three words through their document to see paradigm:
Chapter 1:
"Four distinct paradigms of programming available in the computer
science community today are oriented around procedures, objects, data access
and rules..."
And on page 78, (probably a record setter), paradigm appears in 4 out
of 5 sentences in paragraph 1, 2 out of 4 in paragraph 2, and 1 out 1
in paragraph 3:
"RulesSets in Loops are integrated with procedure oriented, object-oriented
and data oriented programming PARADIGMS. In contrast to single-PARADIGM rule
systems, this integration has two major benefits. It facilitates the
construction of programs which don't entirely fit the rule-oriented PARADIGM.
Rule oriented programming can be used selectively for representing the
appropriate decision-making knowledge in a large program. Integration
also makes it convenient to use the other PARADIGMS to help organize the
interaction between rule-sets.
Using the object-oriented PARADIGM....etc. etc."
Of course, in each of these cases, the author really means model (or
maybe 'philosophy.' If you re-read the paragraph(s) with 'model' substituted
for paradigm, not only is it more readable, it seems to convey the
idea more succinctly.
So what does paradigm mean?
According to Webster's Ninth:
Paradigm: 1: EXAMPLE, PATTERN esp. an outstandingly clear or
typical example or archetype (looking up archetype reveals PROTOTYPE
as a definition) 2: an example of a conjugation
or declension showing a word in all its inflectional forms.
So a PARADIGM is an EXAMPLE! and *NOT* a MODEL or PHILOSOPHY:
eg, The following is a paradigm of how to access C arguments:
main(argc, argv)
int argc;
char *argv;
{
while (argc--)
printf(*argv++);
}
So, to some up: since paradigm does *not* mean model or philosophy,
please do not confuse us or try to impress us when a simple word
will convey the same idea more clearly, succinctly, and without distracting
our brains with an obscure word used incorrectly.
<<<FLAME OFF>>>>
(neighboring grasslands still burning)
"Gee Eddie, look at that Smoke!"
"Yeah, and the flames, too!"
FALLOUT SHIELD:
This flame is not directed at Bobrow & Stefik, or their document (which
is otherwise excellent), but at the incorrect USAGE of an "OO" word.
Jordan
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Jordan A. Bortz Higher Level Software |
| sun!plx!titn!jordan 1085 Warfield Ave Piedmont,CA 94611 (415) 268-8948 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+webster@milano.UUCP (10/29/87)
From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary (1974): paradigm ... n 1: MODEL, PATTERN So it depends on which of my cousins you consult. Dallas Webster
reggie@pdnbah.UUCP (George Leach) (10/29/87)
In article <236@titn.TITN> jordan@titn.TITN (Jordan Bortz) writes: ><<<FLAME ON FORCE 10>>>> > >I'm sick and tired of wading through countless object oriented documents, >each one attempting to outdo the other in terms of raping the word >paradigm. > >For some reason, OO programmers everywhere have seen the word paradigm >written somewhere, think that it means model, or way-about-thinking-about- >programming (which it does not), and, without bothering to look it up, >splay it around documents for our edification anb obfusication. > [ More flaming deleted........] Jordon, I hate to break this to you, but according to Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language, Second College Edition, Paradigm is defined as: a pattern, example, or model. ^^^^^ Furthermore, I have seen the usage of this word in contexts other than OOP! In fact, there was an entire issue of IEEE Computer (I believe) devoted to Multi-Paradigm Languages!!! So don't just complain here! Try comp.lang.misc or something else. George W. Leach Paradyne Corporation {gatech,codas,ucf-cs}!usfvax2!pdn!reggie Mail stop LF-207 Phone: (813) 530-2376 P.O. Box 2826 Largo, FL 34649-2826
mcintyre@csv.rpi.edu (David McIntyre) (10/29/87)
In article <236@titn.TITN> jordan@titn.TITN (Jordan Bortz) writes: >I'm sick and tired of wading through countless object oriented documents, >each one attempting to outdo the other in terms of raping the word >paradigm....... > >So what does paradigm mean? > >According to Webster's Ninth: > >Paradigm: 1: EXAMPLE, PATTERN esp. an outstandingly clear or >typical example or archetype (looking up archetype reveals PROTOTYPE >as a definition) 2: an example of a conjugation >or declension showing a word in all its inflectional forms. > >So a PARADIGM is an EXAMPLE! and *NOT* a MODEL or PHILOSOPHY: The dictionary is generally a bad place to look up the meaning of a technically-used word. Dictionaries are often 10 or 20 years behind the times with even normally-used words, let alone technical phrases. For a reference on how dictionaries cope with the changing language, see the Newsweek from about 3 weeks ago (the one with Bork on the cover). They mention many words and their new and old dictionaries. If we were always restricted to using a word's dictionary meaning, the language would never grow with us. We must be free to appropriately expand our language. Dave "mr question" McIntyre | "....say you're thinking about a plate voice:518-276-5842 | of shrimp.....and someone says to mcintyre@csv.rpi.edu | you 'plate,' or 'shrimp'......" userfbth@rpitsmts.bitnet |
tim@zodiac.UUCP (10/29/87)
>>paradigm != model >>So a PARADIGM is an EXAMPLE! and *NOT* a MODEL or PHILOSOPHY: >> Jordan sorry, sport but i have to disagree with you and your dictionary (or at least your interpretation of the definition). my websters II says: paradigm: 1. a listing of all the inflection of a noun or verb taken as a model for determining the forms of other words like it. 2. a pattern : model also my Roget's II: The New Thesarus lists one alternative word for paradigm : MODEL. my first contact with this now ubiquitous word came in history classes, not from computer folks. the history professors used the word to mean "a way of thinking about something". (i.e. the change from a geocentric view of the universe to a heliocentric view was a shift in paradigm). sooooo, give it a rest, bud. you are wrong, wrong, wrong on this one. the examples you cited are perfectly appropriate uses of the word. tim tim@ads.arpa Advanced Decision Systems Mt. View, CA
alan@pdn.UUCP (10/30/87)
In article <236@titn.TITN> jordan@titn.TITN (Jordan Bortz) writes: >...since paradigm does *not* mean model or philosophy, >please do not confuse us or try to impress us when a simple word >will convey the same idea more clearly, succinctly, and without distracting >our brains with an obscure word used incorrectly. One of the most revolutionary books of the 20th Century, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions", by Thomas S. Kuhn (I hope that's all correct), uses the word "paradigm" to mean approximately "weltanschaung" or "world-view" or "interpretation of reality" or "model of the world". This book has been so influential that the word paradigm has in fact come to mean these things in *modern* academic usage. Language is a dynamic "object" and I really do get tired of all the pedants who see it cast in stone and forevermore frozen in place by dusty old dictionaries. If that's your view of language, what are you doing playing around with Smalltalk? --Alan "The Descriptive Linguist" Lovejoy UUCP: alan@pdn
dan@othello.usc.edu (Dan Antzoulatos) (10/31/87)
In defense of article <236@titn.TITN> jordan@titn.TITN (Jordan Bortz):
Dictionaries can be misinterpreted ... just like the bible.
The word "paradigm" comes from the Greek word "paradigma" which means EXAMPLE;
nothing more, nothing less. Since English already has such a word, paradigm has
taken on the meaning of a special kind of example, one that illustrates the
underlying concept -- a "didactic" example. Academicians, wanting to be as
esoteric as possible, have seized upon this word in full force. Some,
apparently, have extended its true meaning beyond that which is lucidly
defined in the Oxford American Dictionary:
"something serving as an example or model of how things should be done".
Note that the meaning of the word "model" here is not that of a precise
scientific model. Rather, it conveys the meaning of "pattern". You just kind
of trace things out. You don't have to follow it precisely. This is also the
meaning used in other dictionary definitions. So, the problem is that the word
"model" has more than one interpreteation and some just pick the wrong one.8-)
So, when you feel like getting esoteric, "paradigm" should only be
used to describe special examples or patterns, but never 8-(
to describe a precise engineering model.
Examples
--------
GOOD BAD
The master's sample code was a To bring prosperity to this nation,
paradigm of event-driven use the supply-side economic paradigm.
programming.
Of course, there are those who prefer to pronounce my name "Smith" ...
Dan Antzoulatos [USC - Signal and Image Processing Institute]
USENET: ...!sdcrdcf!usc-oberon!brand!dan or
...!mcvax!seismo!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!usc-oberon!brand!dan
ARPANET: dan@brand.usc.edu
USMail: Univ. of Southern California
Powell Hall 306, MC-0272
Los Angeles, CA 90089-0272
phone: (213) 743-0911tony_mak_makonnen@cup.portal.com (10/31/87)
I agree that too often hard and obscure words are used where simpler ones could do the job . The problem with catchy terms is that each person is allowed their own meaning . If the flamer had checked the newer Dictionary he would have noticed that meaning model has been added . It is possible that he missed the paradigm story which hit academia with Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolution . From the last five lines of that book I am quoting the following and will substitute "progamming style" for the original "Scientific knowledge" . Programming style , like language. is intrinsically the common property of a group or else nothing at all. To understand it we shall need to know the special characteristics of the groups that create and use it. i submit that the combination of philosophy and methods which one seeks to discover in the study of such groups is in fact their paradigm (my words). To the degree that reference is made to that which is believed the common property of object programmers the use of the term paradigm is justified d
goldfain@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (11/02/87)
Re: Jordan Bortz' objection to the (mis)usage of "paradigm" ---
I have Thomas Kuhn's _The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions_ (2nd ed.)
in front of me.
He noted that certain experiments or works in science stood out above the
rest, and had tremendous impact, often changing the way science was carried on
by many. These works were so outstanding, that they became the ones studied
by subsequent students and many other experiments would be designed or essays
would be written just to further detail the issues they raised. (After
careful explanation, see page viii in the Preface and page 10 in the main
essay) He calls them "paradigms" and rightly so. This usage of "paradigm" to
mean "example", is not disputed by any of the previous postings in this chain.
But he went on to show how a set of such exemplars, such model works, formed
almost a world view for those who followed in their wake. Thus examples
produced "ways of working/thinking".
I believe that Kuhn's claim is correct, at least in general. Thus it is
not a large move to go from "example", to "methodology". I have even had
professors use the term "paradigm" consistently in lectures to refer to the
world-views of a scientific community, totally setting the "landmark work"
aside. When discussing programming languages/environments, this shifting of
the word "paradigm" to mean "methodology", is right in the mainstream of a
small tradition. You will find this new usage in many departments on campuses
all over the nation. I think it is too late to stop it, though as Mr. Bortz
points out, this is not in the established dictionaries.
In a way, Kuhn has produced his own small paradigm! If Mr. Bortz is
lucky, this usage of the word will fade, perhaps in his lifetime. If he is
not lucky, it will take hold and become the primary meaning of the word, long
after we have all gone to the great network in the sky.
Mark Goldfain
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign