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=1.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fac41,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public From: clovis@wartech.com Subject: Re: What is wrong with OO ? Date: 1996/12/28 Message-ID: <5a29dv$hb2@masters0.InterNex.Net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 206339084 references: <32A4659D.347A@shef.ac.uk> <32B81DA7.6D08@deep.net> <59vr2s$55r@masters0.InterNex.Net> <5a0niaINNlda@topdog.cs.umbc.edu> organization: InterNex Information Services 1-800-595-3333 reply-to: clovis@wartech.com newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.object,comp.software-eng Date: 1996-12-28T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In <5a0niaINNlda@topdog.cs.umbc.edu>, jur@cs.umbc.edu (Jacqueline U. Robertson) writes: Big snip, to save bandwidth >Well, I was with you to some extent until you got here. Code bloat is a >simple trade-off for increased maintainability and extensibility. Quite >simply, it's easier to maintain and extend a decently written application >in high level code than it is to maintain and extend a decently written >application in assembler. What you are saying is a damnable lie, but let's hear your reason for thinking something as inaccurate as this. > Why ? Because the high level language applied is >easier to read, particularly for follow on developers who were not involved >in the original work. Would someone PLEASE and QUICKLY hang those who insist that code is "self-documenting?" Bad algorithms can be written in anything, and so can "cute" an impenetrable code -- AND hirearchies. So you have entirely the wrong answer here. Bad hirearchies are even MORE impenetrable than spaghetti code. >The trade-off is that the assembly level application was more compact (both in disk space and in memory usage) - but harder to extend >and modify. There's a reason that assembly level development is limited >to small areas (such as in the limited resource milieu of deep space probes) - >the trade off in favor of high level languages has generally been worth it, >as increased disk space and increased amounts of RAM are economically cheaper >than the 'more efficient' assembler writing. This is also wrong. The reason that "paradigms" proliferate is obvious; people, and managers in particular, are trying to get something for nothing. Compared to procedural languages, it takes 3 lines of assembler to equal one line of, say, PASCAL stuff. And it generally takes 5 lines of PASCAL to equal a line of Smalltalk in a properly constructed hirearchy. Any operation one needs to do should not be a series of lines, but a single method, and a single message sent to the instance. There are exceptions, but with the compactness come other problems. >I'd guess that over time (and in this case I'm guessing a fairly long >interval), machine generated applications will end up being cheaper than hand >written ones for much the same reason. Assuming that we can afford the machines that generate these applications, and the amount of RAM required to run them. Microsoft WORD is not as reliable, in my experience, as WordStar. And it's not a fraction as friendly. Purportedly it does more, but I think that's only purportedly. The more code paths and code there is, the more there is to go wrong. This is the same, simple principle as Consumer Reports has been telling people about for years -- the more buttons, the sooner it will break down, and the more often it will require repair after it breaks. If you're just blending Mai Tais, no big deal. If on the other hand you lose a file you've been working on all day, not so good. >James A. Robertson >email: jamesr@parcplace.com >phone: 410 952-0471 > >her> The problem remains one of having better programmers rather than better languages. I've done superb work in assembler, and all other paradigms, and I've also hacked out really ugly stuff in Smalltalk. If you design thoroughly, and document thoroughly, it turns out pretty well, if one understands the problem one is trying to solve at all. If you don't, it's a mess, and the particular language, paradigm etc is pointless. OO is NOT a panacea. It is more useful than not ONLY if it is used properly. And that remains a function of a good computer scientist, properly pursuing the trade, eh? Think about it and get back to me. Regards, Frank