tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12467669.post1350198827996090922..comments2023-04-29T07:23:25.825-04:00Comments on Jay Fields' Thoughts: Ruby: POROJayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14491442812573747680noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12467669.post-53112294677593155682007-10-14T07:54:00.000-04:002007-10-14T07:54:00.000-04:00I very sincerely hope that PORO dies as a name. Ju...I very sincerely hope that PORO dies as a name. Just like POJO, what on earth is the point in using an acronym to describe the fundamental unit of abstraction in a language? What's wrong with 'object'?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15739862757440769193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12467669.post-80054204052714510962007-10-13T04:04:00.000-04:002007-10-13T04:04:00.000-04:00Andy,Nice work. I didn't search for "poros ruby", ...Andy,<BR/><BR/>Nice work. I didn't search for "poros ruby", only "ruby poro" and "poro ruby". Thanks for the comment.<BR/><BR/>Cheers, JayAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12467669.post-68650640904232963922007-10-12T16:57:00.000-04:002007-10-12T16:57:00.000-04:00Agreed.However, I disagree about your Google searc...Agreed.<BR/><BR/>However, I disagree about your Google search result. Try to google "POROs Ruby" ;)<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://andymaleh.blogspot.com/2006/11/poros.html" REL="nofollow">POROs</A>Andy Malehhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10268484073612495328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12467669.post-61102267790198062052007-10-12T12:13:00.000-04:002007-10-12T12:13:00.000-04:00"POJO" may have been coined in 2000, but in the C+..."POJO" may have been coined in 2000, but in the C++ world POD and PODS (plain old data [structure]) had already been around for several years, and the term was used in the first C++ ANSI draft. It referred to a C struct or class with no methods or inheritance, only data.Dave Kirbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05692608289845036146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12467669.post-19023684871352698712007-10-12T10:59:00.000-04:002007-10-12T10:59:00.000-04:00I use PRO.1. Doesn't follow the Java pattern. Yay...I use PRO.<BR/><BR/>1. Doesn't follow the Java pattern. Yay.<BR/>2. We don't have anything like EJBs, so Plain Ruby Objects aren't really "old"<BR/>3. I get to say stuff like, "...when I'm PRO coding..."<BR/><BR/>Come on Jay, let's get this term going.hAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com