Re: Functional Objects Site

Subject: Re: Functional Objects Site
From: Scott Ribe <sribe@miqs.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 13:00:04 -0500 (EST)
References: <8BD9EAF3D959D31180950090270BE6A2DF57@dns.eyak.com> <comp.lang.dylan.381FBE91.7DEBA3DE@lostwax.com>
Xref: grapevine.lcs.mit.edu comp.lang.dylan:11032

Yeah, I kind of like the name. It has the connotation of "practical"
objects or "working" objects--"functional" in that sense. Somehow, don't
ask me why, "functional" has just more of a "business-like"
sound than "practical".

Of course, they could have ripped off from BBEdit and named their
company "Objects That Don't Suck". _I_ for one would have loved that
name ;-) Maybe here in this group we could just use that as a nickname!

Rob Myers wrote:
> 
> Ah, that makes sense. OK, I'm warming to the name a little.
> This does of course mean that most business purchasers believe C++ to be a
> technology that helps them achieve their business objectives. :-)

References:

Re: Functional Objects Site

From: Rob Myers <robm@lostwax.com>