Why uldn't we DEFINE a Function as a FUCTION, a Routine as a ROUTINE, and a method as a METHOD (once forever)

[ThSITC]

I',m curious why we couldn't DEFINE, for simplicity:

a) a ROUTINE (formelry called a SUBROUTINE)
     -- denoted in NetRexx as a STATIC METHOD not returning a Value
b) a FUNCTION (always called a FUNCTION, at least I do hope so...:-)
     -- denoted in NetRexx as a STATIC METHOD
c) and an Instance-Method (denoted as a non-STATIC method)

ONCE Forever !

Whil'st it's great, to simply have to search for a METHOD in you NetRexx
program,
it's bad to always change the whole terminology of *computer science*,
IMHO :-(

I would prefer, in my older times, to use the same terms ONCE FOREVER!

(Massa) Thomas.

A reasonable approach would be, of course, to allow BOTH Notations,
whilst sticking to the HUMAN Oriented Approach of the Rexx Family of
Languages.

Even Programmers tend to be human beeings!

Thomas.


--
Thomas Schneider (www.thsitc.com)
_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]