Re: Is Procedural Paradigm a basis of OO Paradigm?


Daniel Parker wrote:
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.

You are right. My mistake. However, the meanings are not materially
different. They are almost synonyms.


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.

I still see a fair amount of hype.


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.

One can read Stepanov's stuff for themselves. Plus, you are hardly a
bastion of precision yourself. Double standard. Further, he tends to
focus on systems software instead of custom biz apps. C++ is mostly a
systems and embedded language.


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.

ADT's are poor at modeling biz at non-trivial scales. They are at
least not better than sets. Sets are superior to ADT's in my opinion.
ADT's are a nice concept, they just don't plug in well to my domain.


Best regards,
Daniel

-T-

.