home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.object
- Path: sparky!uunet!decwrl!csus.edu!netcom.com!objsys
- From: Bob Hathaway <objsys@netcom.com>
- Subject: Re: O.M() versus M(O) notation
- Message-ID: <91_n6rp.objsys@netcom.com>
- Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 19:32:41 GMT
- Organization: Object Systems
- References: <PCG.92Aug18133356@aberdb.aber.ac.uk> <d!!n91k.objsys@netcom.com> <ARO.92Aug21170505@sibyl.aber.ac.uk>
- Lines: 27
-
- In article <ARO.92Aug21170505@sibyl.aber.ac.uk> aro@aber.ac.uk (Andrew Ormsby) writes:
- >In article <d!!n91k.objsys@netcom.com> objsys@netcom.com (Bob Hathaway) writes:
- >
- > [I'm afraid I'v inadvertantly turned Piercarlo into a gelatinous mass.
- > Either he's foreign or has reading trouble.]
- >
- >I shall refrain from commenting on the gelatinous state (or otherwise)
- >of Piercarlo (;-)), but I can confirm that he is foreign. So are you.
- >What's your problem?
-
- I apologize for making such a stupid and meaningless comment. Piercarlo
- and I were discussing the hierarchical vs. graph question, I was on
- the graph side (as I thought he was) and he gave some meaningless example.
- After providing some true graphical examples and pointing out my graph
- orientation of several years, he ignored my comments and then claimed I
- was advocating the hierarchical approach! Maybe he was referring to
- someone else. He then ignored several consistent and clear references
- for my terminology (slighting several distinguished individuals on the way,
- such as Booch and W. Kim) without providing any references himself, and
- then claimed *I* had made up my terms! Oh well. He reminded me of someone
- I know that can hardly speak English and blabbers alot. Happens to the
- best of us in the heat of battle, I guess.
-
- Sorry if I upset anyone, I genuinely didn't mean to.
-
- bob
- objsys@netcom.com
-