Re: Objects and Relations
Date: 31 Jan 2007 23:38:23 -0800
On Jan 31, 7:53 am, Bob Badour <bbad..._at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Marshall wrote:
> > The Stroustroup quote:
> Following the link and then spelunking a little further, I ran across
> this priceless gem:
> "Two factors confound the issue: There is no general agreement on what
> "object-oriented" really is, and discussions rarely account for
> experience sufficiently. Much of "the trouble with OO" comes from people
> with no significant OO experience approaching an ambitious project with
> some partially understood-yet dogmatic and typically limited-notion of
> what OO code must look like."
Stroustroup is an interesting fish. The combination of Stroustroup + Stepanov is even more interesting to observe. It is amusing to note that some of the most advanced features of the C++ type system are there because of where Stepanov wanted to take generic programming. One imagines Stepanov with a Bat-phone on his desk that connects him directly to Bjarne. I believe Stepanov referred to the process as "just-in-time language design."
Stepanov's approach is fascinating; his abstractions are scary-good, but much of work remains mired in the physical mud, and I believe he thinks that's where it's supposed to be. In any event, if one wants to study generic programming (and I believe one should so want) then Stepanov is a must-study case. Whether you like his results or not, IMHO.
> I note in passing that 'people with no significant OO experience' often
> deride those of us with significant OO experience for 'obviously' having
> none at all when we decline the koolaid.
Ha. Ha ha. Ouch, yes. I have run in to that quite a number of times. People who hear me being less that flattering about OOPLs and want to teach me design patterns or some damn thing I finished with years previously.
Marshall Received on Thu Feb 01 2007 - 08:38:23 CET