Re: What databases have taught me

H. S. Lahman wrote:
> Responding to Badour...
>
> >>> OO is hierarchy.
> >>
> >>
> >> LOL. This pretty much says it all. I suggest learning something
> >> about OOA/D; it would make the trolling more credible.
> >
> >
> > With all due respect, I see no reason to think his education in OOA/D is
> > lacking in any way. While his statement is a simplification and a
> > generalization, it is accurate at least to a first-order approximation.
>
> I can't think of a single statement that would be more antithetical to
> what the OO paradigm is about. Probably the single most important thing
> the OO paradigm brought to the development table was the elimination of
> the hierarchical dependencies prevalent in structured functional
> decomposition. Problem space abstraction, peer-to-peer collaboration,
> separation of message and method, encapsulation, flexible logical
> indivisibility, and all the rest of that OO stuff play together for the
> specific purpose of eliminating the spaghetti code resulting from
> hierarchical implementation dependencies.

Heavy procedural hierarchies were tried in the 70's and didn't work out so well. Today's procedural does not need to do that. Use of databases and event-driven programming greatly reduces the need for such. (Some argue that OO is better for event-driven programming, but i've yet to see a good demo of this claim. Perhaps some mean it is better for implimenting event frameworks, not using them.)

>
>
> *************
> H. S. Lahman

-T- Received on Mon Jun 26 2006 - 22:11:17 CEST