Re: Entity and Identity

From: Walter Mitty <>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 12:26:27 GMT
Message-ID: <TzD9m.505$>

"Nilone" <> wrote in message
>On Jul 22, 5:15 am, "Walter Mitty" <> wrote:

>OO programmers do it because that is what they were trained to do.
>Take a look at
>It sounds great, like playing with Lego and being able to design your
>own pieces. All the big language vendors are offering it, so they
>think it's a proven technology.

>OO is broken, and most programmers don't see it.

That might explain why the thundering herd follows OO, but it doesn't explain why leaders in the field recommend it. I can't comment on whether your claim is valid or not, because I've never attempted an industrial strength project using OO design. But I can say that it would surprise me if the industry were captrivated by a broken paradigm for as long as OO has been dominant in the world of programming.

I'll mention in passing that there was a constant visitor who spent about three years in this forum claiming that the RM was counterproductive, and that products like Oracle, DB2, and SQL server had delayed the forward progress in the state of the art. That person's arguments were not persuasive to the vast majority of the regulars here. The arguments were largely based on anecdotal evidence and non sequiturs. My own personal experience was enough to contradict the anecdotal evidence in my mind. The non sequiturs fell of their own weight.

For the theoreticians in the newsgroup, the theoretical underpinnings of the RM were sufficient to contradict the claim that RM was either broken or ocunterproductive.

But the larger counter argument was to ask how the industry could have been captivated by a giant blunder over a period of decades.

I would ask the same question about OO, even though I am in no way an OO fan. Received on Wed Jul 22 2009 - 14:26:27 CEST

Original text of this message