[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question)

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: RE: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question)
• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 20:03:50 -0400
• In-reply-to: <8BD7226E07DDFF49AF5EF4030ACE0B7E06621E82@r...>

Dare writes:
> I could also make a similar argument for eliminating static methods
> OO languages because it encuorages people from a procedural
> background to eschew objects and write their apps as one big mess of
> static method calls. However, rationally simply because there is
> potential misuse for a feature doesn't mean that there aren't any
> benefits. 

Sorry, Dare, but this is XML, not OOP.  A lot of the uglier stupidities
in the XML universe come from mismatched OOP notions, so I'd really
prefer not to use OOP as any basis of comparison.  (Ditto for relational
databases.)

I still fail to see any merit whatsoever in the counterexamples you've
provided.

-- 
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com

• References:
  • RE: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question)
    • From: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Re: URIs, concrete
• Next by Date: RE: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question)
• Previous by thread: RE: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question)
• Next by thread: RE: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread