From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, PP_MIME_FAKE_ASCII_TEXT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII X-Google-Thread: 109fba,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 11cae8,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid11cae8,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: fac41,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public From: "Chris" Subject: Re: What is wrong with OO ? Date: 1996/12/14 Message-ID: <01bbe50f$bd8068c0$LocalHost@gaijin>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 204084682 references: <32A4659D.347A@shef.ac.uk> <58b9jt$jhh@bagan.srce.hr> organization: Chris & Co newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.lnag.java,comp.object,comp.software-eng Date: 1996-12-14T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Kazimir Majorinc a �crit dans l'article <58b9jt$jhh@bagan.srce.hr>... > Hello! > 2. Encapsulation, I mean that both data and functions are together in > object seems to me like very unnatural shape today. Look at > mathemathics. Mathematical language do not use that paradigm, although > things which are described there are more complex than any software. that's because what you can with types in mathematics is not a finite state. What you can do with objects (classes) is supposed to be known and finite. > ... If I overload operators, for > example + in C++, I have disgusting when I use object model, and I have > to prefer first element, when there is absolutely no reasons for that. That's why we should use friend functions... > 3. Polymorphism. The greatest part of OO. I understand wish, but look at > C++. Why if I want to do this things, I have to do it implicitely. I > mean why functions which overload each other should have same name? It > is better to do it explicitely, to say which function is overload of > which. Now things could be simpler. I do not know how to do it in > procedural paradigm, but I believe that it is somehow possible. Because at an abstract level, you may want different (derived) objects do a certain stuff without caring with how it will be performed (like a base or overloaded way). > 6. Messages. I do not know a lot of this, but Idea that object change > himself alone remembers me at the days of programming on TI57, or in > assembler, when every instruction is on so called accumulator. OO wants > accumulator back. ??? -- Chris, drunk philosoph and bad programmer "The nail pulling up calls the hammer" zen proverb