Re: OO fans bashing Joins

<topmind_at_technologist.com> wrote in message news:8aosp7$7l8$1_at_nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <kWvz4.1557$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:

You're not listening. I said it was people thing rather than a technological thing.

> > 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.

Well then we'll agree to disagree (and probably jetison the very popular thought process of categorization too, by your view). We need a learning PhD person to chime in here. I think it's a fundamental way of learning. Perhaps THE way.

> Even many OO fans agree that "thinking good OO" takes a while to get
> used to.

Oh, but those are the ones are coming from the decidedly wrong paradigm of procedural programming. It's harder to play the song correctly if you've first learned to play it incorrectly or have picked up bad habits. :)

Tony Received on Wed Mar 15 2000 - 00:00:00 CET