Hi Arnon,
>RAD btw is THE development methodolegy that embraces prototyping
>thus at least giving the impression of faster development because of the
>incomplete versions it "produces" along the way
>
>OO OTOH - is developing using the following concepts - Inheritance, encapsulation, and polymorphism (I think this is one of the basic
>definitions)

But none of this concepts has anything to do with the software
development process, ie. inheritance does not help you
to decide when to stop analysing and start designing, or when to begin
coding etc. AFAIK most OO authors coincide with the fact that
the develelpment process best suited for OO is an incremental
one (called sometimes round-trip design). The main reason for this
is for having a good OO model (reusable, maintable, that fits
specifications, etc.) not for rapid developmet. Of course you can
always ignore it and use waterfall, wich might work for
non complex systems or for very long availability in AD times.
Both,IMHO, impratical for any discussion. This is why i think
RAD is only a tool, not a methodology. But OTOH, i agree with you
that tryig to convice each other will be a waste a our time,
see we again agree in something! :)

>Yourdon (and Coad) bias toward Databases is the main reason I go mostly by thier methodolegy (with some changes)

You're right. I've only heard about normalized classes from
Yourdon.

Ciao,

J. Luis