Re: OO fans bashing Joins

In article <kWvz4.1557$KK.119244_at_bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "Tony" <tony_at_my.isp> wrote:
>
> topmind <topmindNOtoSPAM_at_technologist.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:2b039368.c1798f4d_at_usw-ex0103-018.remarq.com...
> >
> > >Seriously, it can do so IF you succeed in developing
> > >abstractions that you can reuse.
> >
> > There is no evidence that OO increases reuse.
>
> Read my above statement again. I even capitalized "IF" for you.
> I believe I went on to say that if one is bad at reusing code in
> procedural/structural paradigms, then the same will probably
> occur with the OO paradigm if they use it.
>
That is malarky. Even some OO fans agree that "reuse" is not where OO shines:
http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/reustalk.htm Here are some quotes:
"Where OO has failed (and I and others were making that point in another topic) is re-usability. This is not news. It's been written about for years."
"Software reuse is a management problem, not a technical [paradigm?] problem. Always has been, always will be." "Object orientation is good engineering not because of this reusability nonsense, but because it provides maintainability." Alghouth I disagree with the "maintainability" aspect, this person agrees that reuse is not the selling point. "What I think has happened is that OO has failed to really provide significant re-use benefits. That's OK because OoIsNotAboutReuse [link]. The problem is that in the past re-use has been pitched as a major selling point of OO. In fact, this was pitched so hard that many people seem to confuse OO with re-use. Anybody who conflates OO with reuse  is likely to conclude that OO has failed. People who think OO is about something else will not draw this conclusion. --CurtisBartley "
> > There are some types of problems that OO does well at, but I do
> > not find these patterns in my niche for the most part.
>
> The mainstream finds the patterns of thought very natural and hence
> very applicable. Most people think in "OO" terms whether they are
> using OO or not and whether they know it or not. It's all nouns and
> verbs mostly.
>
That is more malarky. I agree that SOME may find it more natural, but anything more is unfounded.
Even many OO fans agree that "thinking good OO" takes a while to get used to.
> Tony
>
>

-tmind-

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy. Received on Wed Mar 15 2000 - 00:00:00 CET