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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID 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: 109fba,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public From: drush@zakalwe.raleigh.ibm.com Subject: Re: What is wrong with OO ? Date: 1997/01/07 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 208296491 references: <5a9r1k$e74@news4.digex.net> <32C88BE0.7F2B@acm.org> followup-to: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.object organization: ISSC South Region, RTP, NC newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.object,comp.software-eng Date: 1997-01-07T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: As a first comment this thread is diverging just like most of the problematic software systems where "OO has failed". However, I am going to continue to propagate the insanity. Tom Bushell wrote in <32ca9f2d.174894569@news.nstn.ca>: >Very true. But my experience has been that "wiring in" to certain >languages is easier. [snip] This is so true *and* it explains the popularity of C++ (spit). At first C++ feels like everything you ever wanted fixed in C. So people feel "wired in" very quickly. Of course, the more you follow its paradigms and explore its semantic space, you notice that it is really really really really weird in there. Lots of irregularities, insanities, and inanities. OTOH, I've been told that the committe has been fixing some of the craziness. Gripping hand is that a simple, regular semantic basis in a language will take you much further than a complex one. >It seems much easier to get into a state of flow when using these >languages - you just code and test, and everything seems to work. I >can hardly ever achieve this happy state in C, even though it's one of >my most familiar languages - it's just too much like work. Absolutely. I love Smalltalk. I spend almost no time working around the language/coding test programs to check implementation behavior. I must admit that "straight" C flows for me very well, too. It's the simple semantic structure of the language, again. I just don't get a sense of the tool inflicting itself upon my design with these tools. Software development is hard enough. I have to design and explain my work in such a way to keep managers, customers, and users all happy (and the above are all whiny breeds of people). I sure don't like dealing with a whiny compiler on top of it all. In the usenet flow... david rush mailto:kumo@Intercenter.net I bill $100/min for reading commercial email