Re: OO Design induces an existential crisis

> Nor have you answered the problems I pointed out with Open-Closed
> principle. I will assume you agree with the flaws unless answered, and
> reference this discussion when another OO defender brings up OC in the
> future.

You will find another thread in this same tree that responds in detail to
the OC objections. I hope that you will find that we are not 100% in
disagreement.

> To be frank, I
> would bet money that another possibility is true: That you are blowing
> smoke.

I am not trying to promote any ideology. I only seek to describe and
explain. I use a framework to do it. You reject that framework. You are
free to reject my descriptions and explanations. However, I have no intent
to deceive (or "blow smoke" as you put it). I am honestly trying to be a
helpful person.

> You are one of the few OO defenders who claim OO is consistent across
> different designers, I would note. Most relunctantly concede that point
> that I recall.

Read the fine print. I said that two people with equivalent understanding
of the business problem. That may not be all that common. There is some
variation in philosophy as well, to be fair.

> Either way, p/r is not objectively worse for custom business
> applications and I will not let vague brochure-talk destroy it.

An idea stands on its own. If it is strong, it survives. No amount of weak
discussion can "destroy" a strong idea. If procedural code is as solid as
you believe it to be, it will survive without your help. If it is not, it
will die in spite of you. Your opinions, while interesting, are unlikely to
do much for either side in the grand scheme of things. I do enjoy the
debate though. You've given me a few things to think about and I appreciate
that.

--
--- Nick Malik [Microsoft]
MCSD, CFPS, Certified Scrummaster
http://blogs.msdn.com/nickmalik

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this forum are my own, and not
representative of my employer.
I do not answer questions on behalf of my employer. I'm just a
programmer helping programmers.
--
"topmind" <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1121788626.866211.208070@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> Nick Malik [Microsoft] wrote:
>> > As far as why those p/r principles work, I don't fully know nor claim
>> > to fully know. They just do.
>>
>> Of the many threads of discussion we have engaged in, I believe this one
>> to
>> have reached its limit.
>>
>> I asked for a single statement of principles for procedural development
>> (with conditions) after you complained that OO development cannot be
>> consistently applied. We differed about what that would mean, but, alas,
>> the conditions I stated were not met.
>>
>> I'm not sure that there's much else to say on this. I maintain that a
>> just
>> and rational use of OO principles will create well-formed OO applications
>> in
>> a consistent manner. To this, I mean: Two talented designers, having not
>> met each other, but both aware of the exact same problem, would, by
>> following these principles, produce designs that are very similar to each
>> other. That is as consistent as you can get in software.
>
>
> Well, I and others just don't see how those vaguely-worded principles
> will produce consistent business designs, let alone ones more
> change-friendly than a p/r version.
>
> Nor have you answered the problems I pointed out with Open-Closed
> principle. I will assume you agree with the flaws unless answered, and
> reference this discussion when another OO defender brings up OC in the
> future.
>
> Maybe you are right and using that list of alleged principles *does*
> produce consistent and change-friendly biz code, but how to use them
> "right" is not carefully and thoroughly documented anywhere. The
> knowledge is possibly locked in the heads of a few elites and you are
> one of the elites. It is like Quantum Physics: only about 100 in the
> world people understand it. That is one possibility. To be frank, I
> would bet money that another possibility is true: That you are blowing
> smoke.
>
> You are one of the few OO defenders who claim OO is consistent across
> different designers, I would note. Most relunctantly concede that point
> that I recall.
>
> Either way, p/r is not objectively worse for custom business
> applications and I will not let vague brochure-talk destroy it.
>
>>
>> Thank you for a lively and spirited discussion on the topic of
>> consistency.
>> I'll pick up with our other thread.
>> --
>> --- Nick Malik [Microsoft]
>
> -T-
>


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OO Design induces an existential crisis
    ... after bashing OO on the basis that there is no consistent way to ... I don't see how those principles guarentee consistency. ... OC can objectively conflict with duplication factoring for ...
    (comp.object)
  • Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
    ... etc. Deriving what follows from those principles. ... Humans believe that PA is consistent. ... rely on mathematical principles that go beyond PA. ... "Human abilities surpass those of any machine" ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: OO Design induces an existential crisis
    ... > I asked for a single statement of principles for procedural development ... Two talented designers, having not ... That is as consistent as you can get in software. ... change-friendly than a p/r version. ...
    (comp.object)
  • Re: How about some principles people?
    ... >> If you care about truth, be principled and consistent. ... >> you are nothing but a partisan shrill and hack that aren't worth the ... > If you want principles, consistency and truth, you came to the wrong ...
    (alt.politics.bush)