News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Dynamically Typed Languages (2009) by maxerickson on Thursday August 21, 2014 @12:08PM (#8208045)
I dislike orientated, but it is clear enough that it has achieved broad usage and is no longer a mistake.
Re:Dynamically Typed Languages (2009) by dragonwriter on Thursday August 21, 2014 @01:07PM (#8208383)
"orientated" may be a perfectly cromulent word -- and may generally be a synonym for "oriented" -- but the phrase describing the programming paradigm is "object oriented" not "object orientated". Just as "functioning" is indisputably a good word and may be a rough synonym for "functional", but if you talk about about Haskell as a "functioning programming language", you may be correct in a sense, but it won't be as a statement about the programming paradigm it supports.
Re:Dynamically Typed Languages (2009) by mcguire on Thursday August 21, 2014 @12:46PM (#8208276)
Very well, we gift you with the ability to utilize it as much as you like.
Re:Dynamically Typed Languages (2009) by t1m on Thursday August 21, 2014 @12:24PM (#8208135)
I don't dislike the word "orientated" (it is a real word), nor would I discourage it's use on either side of whatever pond. It's simply not correct to use it in the particular and very specific "object oriented" context. Much like the often mis-camel-cased "SmallTalk", it is incorrect.

Had Alan Kay coined the term "object orientated", I would use it without question.