Wow, that sounds interesting.  Any guesses as to what types of things you'll be doing for their page?

If you wouldn't mind, I'm curious:  in brief, how would you define OO programming and any specific reasons your preference is otherwise?

In brief, to make sure we're on the same page, my definition of OOP would be something like... using Classes to define a type and the accompanying interface through which that type may be used; in effect, I would describe a Class as a template.  From that, I would define an Object as an instance based from a template.

That's the short version, of course.  But probably better to expand on it later if desired than to ramble on about it forever beforehand

In my terminology, an understanding of OOP states that one understands the decomposition of problems into types (modules) and the process through which these types can use each other.

LFC8:

Yay for activity .  I'm really hoping to see an increase in it, here...

And, ouch.  Can't say I've had the best experiences with third party tools either.

I haven't had a lot of experience with .NET yet, but so far I'm liking it.

***
Anyone of the opinion that (many / most?) educational institutions tend to focus far too little on design, if at all?

It seems to be a common practice to leave areas such as this both unmentioned and untested.  And very frustratingly so.  The disregard I've observed towards real world problems makes all the little things they test on seem inane.

Anyone else think courses should work in a bit more about analysis, refactoring, coupling / cohesion issues, etc?  Enough problems are caused by this disregard that it amazes me to so little is done.

-------
Unbelievably awesomesauce to the absurd degree that I wet myself.
Who else has created a LW/magnets
so explicit the mods deleted a screencap of it? =P