Re: OO fans bashing Joins

topmind <topmindNOtoSPAM_at_technologist.com.invalid> wrote:

>>> You're not listening. I said it was people thing rather than
>a technological thing. <<
>
>So you are admitting that procedural/relational programming can
>be just a reuse friendly as OO?

     Reuse is an attitude. I find OO more useful for code reuse, but can reuse in either environment.

>>> 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. :) <<
>
>Yeah, whatever. OO is an annoying fad the belongs only in
>specific niches. All those stupid animal and shape examples do
>not translate into real world benefits, they only sell the crap
>to naive PHB's who like a good story.

     My, my! You do have an axe to grind, don't you?

     I have found OO to be more useful and yes, I have seen various fads that I have downchucked (a neologism of mine coming from a combination of "downcheck" and "upchuck").

     Not that OO is a panacea, but it certainly isn't a fad AFAICS. I'm getting good results with it.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:

     I have preferences.
     You have biases.
     He/She has prejudices.