Re: The wisdom of the object mentors (Was: Searching OO Associations with RDBMS Persistence Models)
From: Bruno Desthuilliers <bdesth.quelquechose_at_free.quelquepart.fr>
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 04:00:22 +0200
Message-ID: <447e1ab7$0$15376$636a55ce_at_news.free.fr>
>
> Bruno, the fact that some OO has HOFs and some OO does not supports
> Marshall's observation.
>
>
> Are you agreeing with Marshall that encapsulation and inheritance are
> unecessary?
>
>
> What about ditching an ad-hoc computational model introduced for
> creating large unpredictable state machines out of small predictable
> state machines with predicate logic itself?
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 04:00:22 +0200
Message-ID: <447e1ab7$0$15376$636a55ce_at_news.free.fr>
[Quoted] Bob Badour a écrit :
> Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
>
>> Marshall a écrit : >> >>> Joe Van Dyk wrote: >>> >>>> frebe73_at_gmail.com wrote: >>>> >>>>> But there are many (enterprise) applications there OOAD is not >>>>> suitable. Some OO languages (such as java) has disadvantages because >>>>> they don't allow first-order functions and function pointers. >>>> >>>> >>>> I don't know Java, but if your statement about Java disadvantages is >>>> true, that's a problem with Java -- not with OO. >>> >>> >>> It is simple, if not particularly convenient, to use what are >>> essentially >>> first-order functions and function pointers in Java. However, >>> the fact that you have to fake it illustrates why OOP is merely >>> a useful point of view that works a lot of the time, as opposed >>> to a true foundationally complete approach to programming. >> >> >> Have mercy, stop confusing Java with OO. I do OO everyday, and could >> not live without HOFs.
>
> Bruno, the fact that some OO has HOFs and some OO does not supports
> Marshall's observation.
[Quoted] You don't get it : what I'm saying is that Java is *not* an OO language !-)
>>> Don't get me wrong; I really like OOP and it's what I use >>> when I need to program. But don't mistake its usefulness >>> for profundity. OOP has some deep problems, and some >>> of its features, like encapsulation and inheritance, will be >>> sloughed off when better techinques become widely available. >> >> >> Dynamic typing + real support for automatic (yet controlable) >> delegation, and you don't need inheritance no more (still can use it >> - as an implementation detail - when it's convenient).
>
>
> Are you agreeing with Marshall that encapsulation and inheritance are
> unecessary?
[Quoted] Please stop confusing encapsulation with data-hiding. What I'm saying is [Quoted] that data-hiding is not necessary, and that only declarative static typing and lack of support for delegation makes inheritance so over-abused in brain-dead languages like Java.
> Or are you suggesting that one should mistake whatever
> usefulness one finds in OO for profundity after all?
[Quoted] Not feeding that troll.
>
>> wrt/ encapsulation, I'm afraid you're confusing it with data-hiding, >> which is not a necessary pain if you have support for computed >> attributes. >> >> What about ditching Java in favor of an OO language ?-)
>
>
> What about ditching an ad-hoc computational model introduced for
> creating large unpredictable state machines out of small predictable
> state machines with predicate logic itself?
[Quoted] [Quoted] What about functional programming then ? Received on Thu Jun 01 2006 - 04:00:22 CEST