Dependence on Programming Experts

[GregSmith]

Chipp:

Thank you for your many replies to my questions.  I'll try to take your word
regarding your programming language recommendation, but I really don't yet
understand why you or Rodney feel this way.  Object orientation has always
made complete sense to me  -  the encapsulation of very small functions and
their assembly into larger components.  Traditional programming describes a
sequence of events, detail by detail instead of an assemblage of simple
parts.  This seems counter-intuitive to me.  As I understand it, Transcript
is not object oriented.  It may have syntax that resembles English, but the
construction of systems is what I am aiming at and it seems natural to
define a system in terms of itty bitty parts that combine together to make
bigger and more complex things.  Think of the Model T car.  Pretty useful,
but really not all that complex considering it is made up of merely 300
fairly simple parts.  Looked at a part at a time, creating a Model T seems
quite within practical limits.

Greg Smith
-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Dependence-on-Programming-Experts-tf1893108.html#a5195760
Sent from the Revolution - User forum at Nabble.com.