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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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: 109fba,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public 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: 11cae8,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid11cae8,public From: clovis@wartech.com Subject: Re: What is wrong with OO ? Date: 1996/12/28 Message-ID: <5a29qn$hb2@masters0.InterNex.Net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 206341060 references: <32A4659D.347A@shef.ac.uk> <32A71BC6.2D857063@arscorp.com> <32A82AFE.255A@possibility.com> <58bq8c$3n6@news.utdallas.edu> <32AA207E.3199@deep.net> <32B3F45C.5140@deep.net> <32B81DA7.6D08@deep.net> <59vr2s$55r@masters0.InterNex.Net> <32C3E34F.5DC5@sn.no> 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.lnag.java,comp.object,comp.software-eng Date: 1996-12-28T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In <32C3E34F.5DC5@sn.no>, Tore Lund writes: >Finally a voice of reason - also in the parts snipped out here. The main >problem with OO and functional programming and all the other bright >"paradigms" is their sectarian tendencies. They suffer from an utter >inability to face their own shortcomings and cooperate with other modes >of programming. Why, Thanks, Tore! I've been around the block a few times, and it sounds as though you have been as well. Differential equations, solved in Smalltalk, are no bargain. Neither are they solved best in C (although Smalltalk seems to lack a coherent assembly language interface for genuine engineering-based problems; I find this to be a major shortcoming, almost as though the Smalltalk folks who work on these systems have not paid their dues). >As for the quote above - 8 megs vs. 64k - one must suspect that it is a >conscious strategy to squeeze more money out of end users. (Who just >*love* this sort of squeeze, judging from their reactions.) Or, it is >due to the incompetence of Microsoft and the general megalomania of >these times. In any case, OO as such is not to blame for it. True. My point in all of this is that it comes down to a responsible and disciplined PROGRAMMER, a software professional. After that, the paradigm hardly matters; it is chosen to fit the problem at hand. Smalltalk and C++ are ridiculous for diagnostics, just as Assembly Language makes no sense coding for OSF/Motif's front end. We make hammers in different sizes, and screws and screwdrivers. I believe the same is true of languages; they are tools, not ends in themselves. And the good workmanship is done by those who know which tool to use for what, and don't try to drive screws with a hammer, or nails with the butts of screwdrivers. I would think long and hard before I would forsake Smalltalk for GUI programming. But there may well come a time when the task is sufficiently unusual that it makes more sense than not. The primary loyalty has to be to good work, and nothing else at all. Regards, Frank