I think his point was that OOP as a concept is portrayed as this nirvana of
programming and if you don't implement the design principles of OOP then
nothing will work.

As we all know it horses for courses, using OOP is every scenario is not
always the best way to work.  Personally I've been doing C# for over 2 years
now and some Java before that, yet I still have issues grasping the complete
OO idea.  I like C#.net and think it's a thousand times better than COBOL.
I also like encapsulation, but as the article points out Inheritance can be
horrible thing for maintaining a system.  Unless you have an excellent
structure, discipline and good communication these things can bite you on
the arse.  Of course you could say that about any programming methodology,
but OO is portrayed as the only way to go.

I think the essence of the article was to show that a lot of programmers
don't actually end up applying the true design principles of OO because it
can be too purist and can take too long, when often a more direct approach
can yield positive results.

I take your point, he does go a little over-the-top, which is probably
deliberate.  Good design is always better than none, but I think the reality
is very different from what the OO purists propose.




-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Toback [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 20 January 2005 18:09
To: Richard Barker
Cc: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] OT: OOP opinion



On Jan 20, 2005, at 3:57 AM, Richard Barker wrote:

> http://www.devx.com/DevX/Article/26776
>
> I found this article and have to say I agree with a lot of it.  Anyway
> I
> thought some of you that are re-training might find this interesting.

The article is total nonsense. It's wrong in so many different ways
that I don't even know where to begin to debunk it. This was written by
someone who couldn't understand OOP, and therefore thinks it worthless.
He's wrong about the applications, wrong about the history, wrong about
the concepts and certainly wrong about the utility.

Obviously any concept can be abused by someone who doesn't understand
it; OOP doesn't prevent stupid designs. OOP is a tool, not a goal. But
the writer of "Machine Language for Beginners" who wrote this clearly
hasn't learned much new since 1982. I wonder if he even knew very much
then: I started giving OOP tutorials in 1983 -- at the Edinburgh UK
HP3000 user group conference, in fact.

Like most beginners, he confuses OOP languages with OOP. He writes:

    [Academics] continue to favor C++ and other offspring of C. So
    colleges now turn out thousands of programmers annually who don't
    even know that serious alternatives to C++ or OOP exist.

This guy is totally out of touch. The flavor-of-the-month is Java,
sometimes spelled "C#" in parts of the world. And C++ is not OOP. It's
a language that supports *some* OOP techniques (and misses some
important ones).

"If I can't understand it, it's junk" is a recipe for professional
stagnation. If the problem is that you can't understand OOP, find a
different way of learning it. Ditching C++ is a good start; you can
come back to that language later if you need it. OOP is a set of design
principles, not a language: you can do OOP in COBOL. And contrary to
Mansfield's assertions, those design principles have proven themselves
many times over.

I'd think the article was flame bait, but I know too many programmers
who think the universe consists of COBOL, IMAGE and V+.

-- Bruce

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Toback       (602) 996-8601| My candle burns at both ends;
OPT, Inc.          (800) 858-4507| It will not last the night;
11801 N. Tatum Blvd. Ste. 142    | But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends -
Phoenix AZ 85028                 | It gives a lovely light.
[log in to unmask]                 |     -- Edna St. Vincent Millay

==================================
This message contains confidential information and is intended solely for
the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you are not
the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this
email. Please inform the sender immediately if you have received this e-mail
by mistake and delete this email from your system. Email transmission cannot
be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be
intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or be incomplete. The
sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in
the contents of this message, which arise as a result of email transmission.
If verification is required please request a hard copy version. No contracts
may be concluded on behalf of Virgin Express SA/NV by means of email
communication. Finally, the recipient should check this e-mail and any
attachments for the presence of viruses. The company accepts no liability
for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email.
==================================

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *