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>


[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

Original text of this message