Re: Topic-Organized Object-Oriented Programming
- From: "topmind" <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 8 Feb 2007 12:42:17 -0800
Diego wrote:
On Feb 7, 2:29 pm, "topmind" <topm...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Trees are usually a poor categorization structures beyond the trivial.
I suggest you read:
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?LimitsOfHierarchies
this c2.com/cgi/wiki is one of worst wiki sites I've seen in my entire
life
all articles are a bunch of random quotes, inner discussions and
personal opinions disguised as state-of-art :(
I give explicit and real examples. And, how is it worse than the pro-
OO literature, which is all here-say and no science?
Where is the literature that clearly shows how OO is better (outside
of shapes, animals, and device drivers)???
I will accept the idea that many of my techniques are subjective
preferences. However, the implication of the OO literature is that OO
has been objectively proven better. NOT. If the authors just said, 'I
like my code this way, but don't know why", that is fine. At least the
reader is not misled.
In short, let's see an example of it "done right" to compare to my
"done wrong", eh?
-T-
.
- References:
- Re: Topic-Organized Object-Oriented Programming
- From: Diego
- Re: Topic-Organized Object-Oriented Programming
- Prev by Date: Re: Topic-Organized Object-Oriented Programming
- Next by Date: Re: Topic-Organized Object-Oriented Programming
- Previous by thread: Re: Topic-Organized Object-Oriented Programming
- Next by thread: Re: Topic-Organized Object-Oriented Programming
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|