Re: Is Procedural Paradigm a basis of OO Paradigm?

On Apr 1, 6:04 pm, "topmind" <topm...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"OO is the biggest scam since A.I." - A. Stepanov.

He said "hoax", not "scam". It's important to get your quotes right.

Besides that was in 2000, at the tail end of OO hype, back when people
still went to OO conferences, and vendors still mentioned OO in their
sales literature. Those days are gone, and there are new hoaxes.

But the fact that you just drop the quote, and make no effort to
convey why Stepanov doesn't like OO, proves Steven's point. You can't
seem to get beyond the assertion "OO bad", you can't dig deeper, and
nobody gets any points for an assertion.

For what it's worth, Stepanov's C++ STL doesn't look that great, with
the benefit of hindsight. Personally, for the collection classes, I
would have preferred well thought out abstract classes for Bags, Sets,
Lists, Arrays, Maps, etc., and implementations thereof. You know,
basic OO, if you accept the notion that the substantative part of OO
is ADTs.

Best regards,
Daniel


.

Relevant Pages