Re: CLOS and C++
From: Thomas F. Burdick (tfb_at_famine.OCF.Berkeley.EDU)
Date: 11/22/03
- Next message: Thomas F. Burdick: "Re: Antilock brakes"
- Previous message: Raffael Cavallaro: "Re: Why I don't believe in static typing"
- In reply to: Peter Seibel: "Re: CLOS and C++"
- Next in thread: Peter Seibel: "Re: CLOS and C++"
- Reply: Peter Seibel: "Re: CLOS and C++"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: 21 Nov 2003 21:53:53 -0800
( Aarg, this thread got active while I was gone. I'll just pick this
post to pick on, and quote random chunks. My response is really to
the discussion so far. )
Peter Seibel <peter@javamonkey.com> writes:
> Kenny Tilton <ktilton@nyc.rr.com> writes:
>
> > No, that is just library use.
Peter, every counterexample you've come up with falls under this.
Don't get me wrong, OOP (with an appropriately large standard library)
*does* make library use easier. But this isn't what we were promised,
this is just what we had before, but a little better. And in the case
of Java, where classes are gigantic, I think it's mostly due to the
fact that the language provides enough of a common library, and a
standard system construction and distribution framework. The amount
of sharing by Java users versus their peers is impressive, but.
> Uh, what? I'm not sure what you think you were promised--one class
> that would do everything you ever wanted, no programming required?
[ silly aside: ]
Now *that*'s a Java mindset! The marketing-department-written copy told
use we'd get one heirarchy of very small classes: you'd just find the
one you wanted, subclass, and you're done.
[ Obviously, no one reasonable belived this ]
> Hmmm. Maybe I missed the hype memo,
Memo!!! I've moved a dozen times in the last decade, so I don't have
any copies of the old hype, but someone should dig some of it up for
Peter, I think he spent too much time using an OOP language for
engineers (eg, I'm sure that Java folk use the old OOP-hype words with
newer, more useful meanings). Back in the days of "use Smalltalk!
Refactor! Objects are Alive!", they said you would work on developing
your application; you'd do this by writing new methods, subclassing,
etc. When you were done, you'd extended the language (remember, this
is Smalltalk). The next app you wrote would use a fair amount of the
code from the last app, *without* *effort*. Not, "you can factor out
a FOO class library more easily, because in writing the unfactored
version, you already did some of the work of making it a library".
The idea was that this new methodology would make reusing code
effortless: your new methods (on old classes) and new classes are
still in the image, all you have to do is use them.
OOP, as hyped in the early 90's was a great big failure. It turns out
that it had plenty of other benefits, which explains all the happy
Smalltalkers.
(Somebody should dig up some of the old hype and bring it to the next
BA Lispniks meeting)
> (Remember I'm a Lisp fan--I
> *know* it's a billion times *better* and less painful to do it in
> Lisp; I'm just saying that I'd be surprised to see a completely new
> kind of reuse.[1])
Yeah, I was pretty excited about it, personally. Older, wiser, more
cynical now :-)
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war |
,--' _,' | Wage class war! |
/ / `-----------------------'
( -. |
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
- Next message: Thomas F. Burdick: "Re: Antilock brakes"
- Previous message: Raffael Cavallaro: "Re: Why I don't believe in static typing"
- In reply to: Peter Seibel: "Re: CLOS and C++"
- Next in thread: Peter Seibel: "Re: CLOS and C++"
- Reply: Peter Seibel: "Re: CLOS and C++"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
