What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities?

[Thomas G. Marshall]

beliavsky at aol.com coughed up:
> Thomas G. Marshall wrote:
>

*Missattributed* --Thomas G. Marshall (I) did /not/ write the following:

>>> I am not familiar with modern Fortran. Surely it at least has
>>> argument prototyping by now?
>
> Since the 1990 standard, if Fortran subroutines and functions are
> placed in MODULEs, or if INTERFACEs are provided, the compiler checks
> that procedures are called with the right types (int or float, scalar
> or array, etc.) of arguments.
>
>> There are some fortran advocates that pop into here now and again.
>> Frankly, I'm spooked by how far fortran seems to have come.  There
>> is even OO support now.  OI.
>
> Some Fortranners think the language has gotten too big and
> complicated, sounding a bit like C programmers complaining about C++
> (I don't mean that pejoratively).

There are old-poops in every discipline.  :)


-- 
Unix users who vehemently argue that the "ln" command has its arguments
reversed do not understand much about the design of the utilities.  "ln
arg1 arg2" sets the arguments in the same order as "mv arg1 arg2".
Existing file argument to non-existing argument.  And in fact, mv
itself is implemented as a link followed by an unlink.