Mixing Paradigms (Re: OO-Inquisition)
- From: topmind <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 19 Apr 2007 08:23:29 -0700
From what I can tell he goes for a 100% RM, 0% OOP mixture, I prefer
to vary the mixture according to the need. I'm a fan of many
paradigms, I just morph between them all as required.
The quoting of the above seemed to have gotten messes up, so I
apologize if it's misquoted. But as far as mixing paradigms, we've had
long discussions on this before. I held the belief that it is
impossible for most developers to master multiple paradigms in their
lifetime. The lifetime of a programming career is growing shorter and
shorter these days because of age discrimination and offshoring.
Employers feel obligated to pay older programmers more, but don't
value experience for some reason, perhaps because technology changes
so often, and so bypass them. You are expected to go into management
after 15-20 years of programming. Thus, it is more logical to master a
*few* complimentary paradigms rather than be mediocre at a dozen.
That being said, I don't mind a little OO used for interfaces to
outside services, such as FTP or the file system. It is larger-scale
*business-modeling* that OO has yet to prove itself. However, small
API's are not going to be significantly improved with OO, if any. IOW,
on a small scale it won't make much difference. From the developer's
perspective, those kinds of API's don't look much different than the
FORTRAN equivalent I used to use when I first started my career. Back
then they called them "handles" instead of "objects". There is not
much to miss.
-T-
.
- References:
- OO-Inquisition
- From: coeval
- Re: OO-Inquisition
- From: H. S. Lahman
- Re: OO-Inquisition
- From: Alvin Ryder
- OO-Inquisition
- Prev by Date: Re: OO-Inquisition
- Next by Date: Re: OO-Inquisition
- Previous by thread: Re: OO-Inquisition
- Next by thread: Re: OO-Inquisition
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|