Re: Polymorphism Downsides
- From: "topmind" <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 26 Sep 2006 22:29:23 -0700
Craig Vermeer wrote:
topmind wrote:
Craig Vermeer wrote:And I wasn't questioning your stance that procedural programming is
Thus, before I fork over the money and time for such a book, I shallNope, because the point of his book wasn't to compare OO and procedural
request some specifics about what to look for and what to compare and
what kind of metric you are using. Does the author provide the
comparison and metrics? If not, where do I get them from?
programming as to which is 'better'. The book was about applying UML
and GOF patterns to software design and implementation.
Again, I don't question that OO based on UML can be made to run and
produce the correct output. But, that is not the issue at hand.
Assembly language can also be made to run and produce the correct
output. But, I don't want to program in assembly because my
productivity is low in it, both for creation and maintenance.
'better'. I was just trying to provide a data point that you may or may
not have been aware of regarding examples of patterns in business
software, and not trying to address all of the issues you raise in the
larger debate.
Okay. If your point is that biz examples exist in OO books, regardless
of whether they are evidence of betterment or not, then I generally
concur. Martin Fowler also has a book or two with biz examples, I
would note.
Again, the beauty of having a few thousand people
listening in on the conversation is that anyone can jump in and
contribute as little as they want :-D
Few thousand? I don't think too many people care what we say here. We
are boring and bicker too much. Maybe a hundred or so when the weather
outside is bad.
I know _I_ write better software using OO than I did using procedural
programming, but then again as I gained experience I moved toward OO, so
it may be a chicken and egg thing where my additional experience is
the main reason for better software. YMM(and obviously does)V.
If you could turn that knowledge into publicly-inspectable examples
comparing and demonstrating clear benefits, that would be great (and
rare). You would be going where no man has gone before, without even
leaving the Blue Planet.
(A lot of UML is more or less Entity-Relationship diagrams with
different symbols, I would note. Mirroring database schemas in
application code is poor abstraction and unnecessary duplication of
structure much of the time.)
I believe these are fair questions.
Thank you for your opinion.
Ditto.
-T-
.
- References:
- what's the future of Object Oriented Programming
- From: VV
- Re: what's the future of Object Oriented Programming
- From: H. S. Lahman
- Re: what's the future of Object Oriented Programming
- From: Bruno Desthuilliers
- Re: what's the future of Object Oriented Programming
- From: Phlip
- Polymorphism Downsides (was: what's the future of Object Oriented Programming)
- From: topmind
- Re: Polymorphism Downsides (was: what's the future of Object Oriented Programming)
- From: Nick Malik [Microsoft]
- Re: Polymorphism Downsides (was: what's the future of Object Oriented Programming)
- From: topmind
- Re: Polymorphism Downsides (was: what's the future of Object Oriented Programming)
- From: vermeeca
- Re: Polymorphism Downsides (was: what's the future of Object Oriented Programming)
- From: topmind
- Re: Polymorphism Downsides
- From: Craig Vermeer
- Re: Polymorphism Downsides
- From: topmind
- Re: Polymorphism Downsides
- From: Craig Vermeer
- what's the future of Object Oriented Programming
- Prev by Date: Re: Is this too much OOP?
- Next by Date: Re: Applying multiple design paterns to a single class
- Previous by thread: Re: Polymorphism Downsides
- Next by thread: Re: what's the future of Object Oriented Programming
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|