Prev: learning OOD with C++, good idea ?
Next: Design clarification
From: pandit on 1 Mar 2007 12:20
On Mar 1, 10:17 pm, "arnuld" <geek.arn...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 1, 9:48 pm, "Mark Nicholls" <Nicholls.M...(a)mtvne.com> wrote:
> > On 23 Feb, 13:22, "arnuld" <geek.arn...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 22, 10:53 pm, "Mark Nicholls" <Nicholls.M...(a)mtvne.com> wrote:
> > > > it is trivial to consider procedural programming as a special case of
> > > > OO, OO gives you some extra bells and whistles that make life easier
> > > > (or more complex depending on what hat you've got on).
>
> > > you mean one can learn OOD without learning procedural paradigm
>
> > > ?
> > technically yes....
>
> > it would be equivalent to learning to run without first learning to
> > walk though, once you'd learnt to run someone could tell you that
> > walking was just running slowly.
>
> i did not get whether that was a +ve comment or -ve one. i mean, i did
> not get whether you recommend precedural 1st or not. really sorry but
> your reply is ambiguous to me :-(


i think he is saying: You can learn OO paradigm without learning
procedural paradigm as basis.

but i am just guessing

-- pandit

 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: learning OOD with C++, good idea ?
Next: Design clarification