Re: Confessions of an "OO Foreigner"
From: Peter E.C. Dashwood (dashwood_at_enternet.co.nz)
Date: 12/31/03
- Next message: Peter E.C. Dashwood: "Re: CoBOL moved to OO"
- Previous message: Thane Hubbell: "Re: Confessions of an "OO Foreigner""
- In reply to: Thane Hubbell: "Re: Confessions of an "OO Foreigner""
- Next in thread: Richard: "Re: Confessions of an "OO Foreigner""
- Reply: Richard: "Re: Confessions of an "OO Foreigner""
- Reply: William M. Klein: "Re: Confessions of an "OO Foreigner""
- Reply: Thane Hubbell: "Re: Confessions of an "OO Foreigner""
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 12:55:12 +1300
"Thane Hubbell" <thaneh@softwaresimple.com> wrote in message
news:bfdfc3e8.0312301535.381e7c90@posting.google.com...
> >
> > Only if it is early bound (and early binding stinks IMO).
> >
> > Pete.
>
> Not true - inline method invocation works with late binding provided
> the object reference is a universal object reference (which requires
> late binding).
What do you mean by a "universal object reference"? (Defined in
Factory...?)
I don't understand this.
I tried using inline method invocation in late bound programs and it didn't
work. Hence my post. If you know better, I'd appreciate enlightenment.
>I also disagree with you - performance wise, late
>binding is bad.
Yes, I know that. It depends on what you mean by "bad". It is not so bad as
to be noticeable, in the implementations I have written. I said it was my
opinion. It is. I arrived at it after balancing the supposed "bad"
performance against the flexibility late binding affords.
>
> Model based programming is made possible by OO. In addition "web
> services" are made possible by OO syntax. SOAP means Simple OBJECT
> Access Protocol. With these advances OO - being Objects AS A SERVICE
> - will fulfill its promise.
That is already possible with components. "Web Services" are dependent on
the adoption of MS .NET and that is by no means a given...yet. SOAP is good
but it really adds little. The same effect is attainable with DCOM+ and DTS
(once you get them to work properly...).
Your view of OO seems limited to COBOL (where I agree it has not fulfilled
its promise yet.) In other areas and other languages it HAS fulfilled its
promise.
Pete.
- Next message: Peter E.C. Dashwood: "Re: CoBOL moved to OO"
- Previous message: Thane Hubbell: "Re: Confessions of an "OO Foreigner""
- In reply to: Thane Hubbell: "Re: Confessions of an "OO Foreigner""
- Next in thread: Richard: "Re: Confessions of an "OO Foreigner""
- Reply: Richard: "Re: Confessions of an "OO Foreigner""
- Reply: William M. Klein: "Re: Confessions of an "OO Foreigner""
- Reply: Thane Hubbell: "Re: Confessions of an "OO Foreigner""
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|