Re: Why is OO popular?
From: Jason Hawryluk (IHATESPAM_at_3gcomm.fr)
Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 22:48:08 +0200
excuse my english... a little rusty.
You people really need to get out more....
Ever hear of </Dance Object> or </Drink Object> or </Turn off the CPU and
spend more time with the familly object>
How about putting these into a structure just for fun. Perhaps no
experiance??? Thefore not able to wack out a couple of use cases... lets get
some marketing expert to case these out for us.
Companys change, people change, activities change etc etc... I always though
that OOP was about abstracting those changes from a core layer. I.E. from
company to company or person to person. The core parts of the program
between clients remmains the same but the abstraction changes. OOP allows us
to do this. Companys are going towards known products with the ability for
change. We have many customers all using the same core moduals but the
business rules/logic change. Each company wants what the other has but
customized to it's specific ideas,needs,constraints etc...
This customization is where the real value lies for the client as it allows
the company to out perform thier copetitors. OOP allows for change therefore
OOP is better the procedural because of this. Today the money is in the
ability to change. Alot of the other constraints have been solved
(maintenance, thin client, etc...) and the one that will always be there is
change. Not the ability to change from a cow to a horse, but the ability to
produce milk,cream,or butter from the same animal with only changing
We as programmers are logicle thinker's (often to much so), I to this day
have never encountered a logicle marketing/or customer service guy...
Business process is logic and the ability to truly understand it requires a
logicle thinker especially if we want to improve the process and get the
kinks out... dosn't XP cover this ?
Do you guys really need to take the time to abstract a system down to the
cow/horse level???? I know the difference between a cow and a horse therfore
i do not need to go that low.
Raw material + Process = ByProduct
Each of which may change.
OOP is good but taking it to far can be dangerous...
"Mark S. Hathaway" <firstname.lastname@example.org> a écrit dans le message de
> Perhaps we'll have to have a less definitional system
> and a more dynamic one, where we simply create a 'blank'
> object and in our using of it the functionality and
> states are grown on, composed, added.
> This certainly wouldn't prevent inheritance; not by any means,
> but it would shift the focus more to composition.
> I think the more people reuse classes which have been
> thoroughly tested then apps. are more likely to be
> correct. I suspect most people are much more comfortable
> and capable of USING objects/classes than in creating
> their own. This means most people are capable within
> the procedural framework, but with some added capabilities
> which would naturally come from having not just int, double,
> char, but also a Smalltalk class system.