Re: What databases have taught me
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 15:45:13 +0200
> queisser wrote:
>>I think a distinction between macro and micro-OO needs to be made. At a >>macro level OO may be as good or bad as any other method of structuring >>code.
> I've found network of objects to be worse than most. The architectural
> "components" you tend to write in decent O-O systems aren't really
> objects at all in any normal sense; witness SOA, CORBA, etc. Those
> aren't objects, and pretending they are (e.g. in Java where everything
> has to be an object) is silly.
Java insist putting everything in classes for "OOness" sake, but still have "primitive" (non-object) types and no first-order functions. AFAIC, Java is a braindead language. Too bad everyone and her little sister confuses OO with Java - this greatly deserves OO IMHO.
> This criticism obviously doesn't apply to languages with multimethods
> and functions as first-class entities.
> We're creating systems, not trying to emulate reality (in which, by the
> way, it's clear real hierarchies are rare).
Lol. But note that Simula was about, well, simulation - which may explain this trend...
> Emulating reality is
> another phantasm conjured by O-O.
Agreed. But see above.
>>It just seems impossible to learn unless you go through the above-mentioned >>stages.
> Maybe. It's discouraging to think this stuff can't be taught;
Is it really so ?
> if industry and academia weren't so faddish, the teaching would
Agreed again. Most of the damage comes IMHO from dummies trying to teach ununderstood OO to other dummies - with of course dumb examples in dumb languages.
-- bruno desthuilliers python -c "print '_at_'.join(['.'.join([w[::-1] for w in p.split('.')]) for p in 'onurb_at_xiludom.gro'.split('@')])"Received on Sat Jun 24 2006 - 15:45:13 CEST