<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Has OO really  won the battle.</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.agiledesign.co.uk/technical/has-oo-really-won-the-battle/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.agiledesign.co.uk/technical/has-oo-really-won-the-battle/</link>
	<description>Building business agility though software</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Jul 2010 09:37:52 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=abc</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Phran</title>
		<link>http://www.agiledesign.co.uk/technical/has-oo-really-won-the-battle/comment-page-1/#comment-215</link>
		<dc:creator>Phran</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Apr 2006 15:04:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.agiledesign.co.uk/wordpress/2006/03/25/has-oo-really-won-the-battle/#comment-215</guid>
		<description>There is no battle. There is no war. Only good software that does what is needed.
Now define good....</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There is no battle. There is no war. Only good software that does what is needed.<br />
Now define good&#8230;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dave.draper</title>
		<link>http://www.agiledesign.co.uk/technical/has-oo-really-won-the-battle/comment-page-1/#comment-203</link>
		<dc:creator>dave.draper</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Mar 2006 09:08:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.agiledesign.co.uk/wordpress/2006/03/25/has-oo-really-won-the-battle/#comment-203</guid>
		<description>I am happy to acknowledge that there are non OO ways of working and non OO languages.

The contrast I was drawing was between the acceptance of OO languages (C++ / JAVA / C#) vs. the acceptance of OO principles.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am happy to acknowledge that there are non OO ways of working and non OO languages.</p>
<p>The contrast I was drawing was between the acceptance of OO languages (C++ / JAVA / C#) vs. the acceptance of OO principles.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ben</title>
		<link>http://www.agiledesign.co.uk/technical/has-oo-really-won-the-battle/comment-page-1/#comment-202</link>
		<dc:creator>Ben</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Mar 2006 11:57:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.agiledesign.co.uk/wordpress/2006/03/25/has-oo-really-won-the-battle/#comment-202</guid>
		<description>Um... I can see that the &#039;functional programming&#039; crowd might not use OO, but C is *not* a functional programming language - it is an imperative language.  Haskell, Scheme, Lisp - these are functional programming languages.  And in these, they either have an OO system (CLOS is one for Lisp) or it is really, really easy to make your own.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Um&#8230; I can see that the &#8216;functional programming&#8217; crowd might not use OO, but C is *not* a functional programming language &#8211; it is an imperative language.  Haskell, Scheme, Lisp &#8211; these are functional programming languages.  And in these, they either have an OO system (CLOS is one for Lisp) or it is really, really easy to make your own.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
