actor/object oriented are ugly

Subject: actor/object oriented are ugly
From: "James M.Lockard" <norton -at- MCS -dot- NET>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 1996 07:49:03 -0600

Tech writers,

Actor-oriented or object-oriented? Read them. Say them out loud. See what
I mean? Ugly.

Now try "active voice" and "passive voice". They sound better. Moreover,
they're good terms. Let's not replace good terms with
technobusinessbabble.

Writing in the active voice means that the verbs carry the meaning of the
sentence and the person or thing performing the action is clear. In the
passive voice, the nouns carry the meaning of the sentence and the person
or thing performing the action is muddied (or "obfuscated" as some would
have it). The active voice is clear, direct, and lively--active. The
passive voice is unclear, indirect, and phlegmatic. Which would you want
to read?

Although the passive voice can be useful at times, in general, it is
lazy.

Sorry for the diatribe (SFTD ?)
James Lockard
norton -at- mcs -dot- net

"I meant what I said, and I said what I meant."
-- Horton the Elephant


Previous by Author: Re: Redundancy...
Next by Author: Re: WinHELP Philosophy
Previous by Thread: Leaves on sidewalk
Next by Thread: Re: Passive voice -- a story


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads