Re: OO? Oh oh!
From: Thane Hubbell (thaneh_at_softwaresimple.com)
Date: 02/03/04
- Next message: Richard: "Re: End of Line?....."
- Previous message: ¤Q¤: "End of Line?....."
- In reply to: Howard Brazee: "Re: OO? Oh oh!"
- Next in thread: JerryMouse: "Re: OO? Oh oh!"
- Reply: JerryMouse: "Re: OO? Oh oh!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: 2 Feb 2004 18:46:39 -0800
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message news:<bvlsl3$h92$1@peabody.colorado.edu>...
> On 1-Feb-2004, thaneh@softwaresimple.com (Thane Hubbell) wrote:
>
> > The value of the paradigm comes from "knowing what you have" to build
> > on. The failure comes from forgetting what bricks you have already
> > invented to build on. Polymorphism fails when you don't know what you
> > have to begin with. Most times OO systems collapse under their own
> > weight because of frequent re-invention of things already there. It
> > gets too confusing. This is not an OO failure - it's a failure in
> > implementation. That's my point.
>
> But "frequent re-invention of things already there" may be OO's saving grace.
> Sometimes it is better to have many different bricks than one brick that can do
> it all. Sometimes it is too dangerous to morph an existing foundation of the
> building so that it can do just one more task.
>
> Realizing that just because re-use can be useful sometimes - it can be costly
> other times - is vital.
No argument there Howard. It's an interesting problem. An argument
could be made that COBOL is TOO easy. That any fool can write any
fooling system, where in OO it takes a least a little more thought.
However in practice, I have found that there's little weight to such
an argument. COBOL by it's nature tends to foster sound Data
processing techniques. It's neither here nor there, OO wise. What
does matter is that OO design is a DIFFERENT process. One cannot use
the same old methods used procedurally to design using OO.
- Next message: Richard: "Re: End of Line?....."
- Previous message: ¤Q¤: "End of Line?....."
- In reply to: Howard Brazee: "Re: OO? Oh oh!"
- Next in thread: JerryMouse: "Re: OO? Oh oh!"
- Reply: JerryMouse: "Re: OO? Oh oh!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|