Re: OO fans bashing Joins

In article <38d063a5.41424755_at_news.shuswap.net>, genew_at_shuswap.net (Gene Wirchenko) wrote:
>topmind <topmindNOtoSPAM_at_technologist.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>> You're not listening. I said it was people thing rather than
>>a technological thing. <<
>>
>>So you are admitting that procedural/relational programming can
>>be just a reuse friendly as OO?
>
> Reuse is an attitude. I find OO more useful for code
 reuse, but
>can reuse in either environment.
>
>>>> Oh, but those are the ones are coming from the decidedly
>>wrong paradigm of procedural programming. It's harder to play
>>the song correctly if you've first learned to play it
>>incorrectly or have picked up bad habits. :) <<
>>
>>Yeah, whatever. OO is an annoying fad the belongs only in
>>specific niches. All those stupid animal and shape examples do
>>not translate into real world benefits, they only sell the crap
>>to naive PHB's who like a good story.
>
> My, my! You do have an axe to grind, don't you?
>
> I have found OO to be more useful and yes, I have seen
 various
>fads that I have downchucked (a neologism of mine coming from a
>combination of "downcheck" and "upchuck").
>
> Not that OO is a panacea, but it certainly isn't a fad
 AFAICS.
>I'm getting good results with it.
>

Which niche? I agree that it has it's place, but that place is not everywhere.

Do you have any examples of how it (allegedly) improves upon procedural/relational programming?

>Sincerely,
>
>Gene Wirchenko
>
>Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:
> I have preferences.
> You have biases.
> He/She has prejudices.
>
>

-tmind-

• Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!