mjl@cs.rit.edu (12/16/89)
In article <11345@goofy.megatest.UUCP> djones@megatest.UUCP (Dave Jones) writes: >From article <77500020@m.cs.uiuc.edu>, by render@m.cs.uiuc.edu: >> I'll bite. Here's what I get: >> paradigm: 1. model, pattern. (according to Merriam-Webster) >> paradigm: 1. a pattern, example or model. (Webster's Unabridged) >> So, what's your point? Do you think everybody using it incorrectly? >Yes. > >Because you read the rest of the line in Merrium-Webster's, you know >that it continued, 'esp: an outstandingly clear or typical example >or archetype.' An "object-oriented paradigm" would be a program which was >written so expertly as to be an exemplary model for other programs of that >sort, or one which was so typical of object-oriented programs >as to serve as a definitive example. But in any case, it is *a program*, >or a model of *a program*. Once again, I refer one and all Floyd's Turing Award Lecture on the Paradigms of Programming (1978). My belief is that he used the definition to mean "model" or "pattern". This is reinforced both by the selection he used from the OED and by his examples. For instance, in the second paragraph of his presentation he refers to structured programming as a familiar paradigm of programming. Later he references levels of abstraction and information hiding as being components of this paradigm. Other paradigms he mentions include rule-based (using MYCIN and TEIREISIAS as "elaborations" of the paradigm), and mutually communicating co-routines. In this context, then, it is as natural to speak of the "object oriented paradigm", as it is the dominant paradigms in modern physics: relativity and quantum mechanics (not the concise formula E = mc^2, nor the Schroedinger wave equations, which are embodiments or consequences of these paradigms). Floyd is also no stranger to Kuhn's work, as evidenced by several apt quotes in the text. Thus his choice of paradigm was a concious decision reflecting his desire to focus on models and patterns. So I agree with Floyd's use of paradigm, with its emphasis on patterns and models, as this in turn emphasizes the creative nature of design and implementation. Methodology, while nearly synonomous, has developed connotations of strict, by-the-numbers rules, which is the antithesis of creativity. Mike Lutz Rochester Institute of Technology P.S. Whether you agree with Floyd's use of the term, I suggest you read his lecture. It's a gem. Mike Lutz Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester NY UUCP: {rutgers,cornell}!rochester!rit!mjl INTERNET: mjlics@ultb.isc.rit.edu
mbr6316@ultb.isc.rit.edu (M.B. Robin) (12/22/89)
In article <1443@cs.rit.edu> mjl@prague.UUCP (Michael Lutz) writes: >In article <11345@goofy.megatest.UUCP> djones@megatest.UUCP (Dave Jones) writes: >>From article <77500020@m.cs.uiuc.edu>, by render@m.cs.uiuc.edu: >> ... 'esp: an outstandingly clear or typical example >>or archetype.' An "object-oriented paradigm" would be a program which was >>written so expertly as to be an exemplary model for other programs of that >>sort ... Note that the word "paragon" remains unscythed, and is similar to "paradigm" as defined above. (Is this rec.english.evolution ??) ____________________________________________________________________________ Michael Robin, 315 Fairwood Circle mbr6316@ritcv.rit.edu Rochester, NY, 14623 ...rochester!ritcv!mbr6316 "Saru mo ki kara ochiru." _____________________________________________________________________________