&some interesting babbling: http://www.infoq.com/interviews/johnson-armstrong-oop
-- Kind regards,Stefan HoutzagerHoutzager ICT consultancy & developmentwww.linkedin.com/in/stefanhoutzager
Long live procedural!?
RE: oo fun
Reply by Martha Lynch
Long live procedural!?
Stop receiving emails on this subject.
Flag this post as spam/abuse.
Flag this post as spam/abuse.
You read the article I see. ;-) (Not).
Of course these links are provided to stir the pot.
As the famous Edsger Dijkstra said: "I am still convinced that in computing, elegance is not a dispensable luxury but a quality that decides between success and failure; in this connection I gratefully quote from The Concise Oxford Dictionary a definition of "elegant", viz. "ingeniously simple and effective". Amen. (For those who have wondered: I don't think object-oriented programming is a structuring paradigm that meets my standards of elegance.)" (http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD12xx/EWD1284.html)
could be worth to consider and think / research a bit further - or try at least - than the measure of your noses instead of easily and blindly following the trends progress software company aligns for you, as a trendfollowing company. ;-)
see c2.com/.../wiki for an extensive list, and a link to benefits of oo also.
You've been on this soap box for quite some time and if memory serves me correctly, in multiple threads in the Community. I'm curious, sir, what is the driving factor behind your hard line anti-OOP stance? More importantly, are recent releases of OpenEdge keeping you from continuing to develop software adhering to the procedural development paradigm that you clearly favor?
Where did you read that I favor the procedural paradigm? You got it totally wrong in any case. I post these links just to consider the arguments offered therein and it is not a soap box in spite of the title I gave to the thread.
I inferred as much from your multiple threads with anti-oop themes, and more recently, from this very thread;
"could be worth to consider and think / research a bit further - or try at least - than the measure of your noses instead of easily and blindly following the trends progress software company aligns for you, as a trendfollowing company. ;-)"
Clearly I did not put enough weight into the winking emoticon at the end of that statement. Sarcasm, perhaps? Either way, I misread your intent. Pardon my ignorance and thank you for clarifying your position.
I see my position as unimportant in these matters. But I really hate to be put in a position, and that is what you notice (the sarcasm and so). This thread is just to provide some links to texts questioning the oo paradigm, inasfar as oo is identifyable as a paradigm. Maybe that is my scientific education ( ahem). Say that I look for falsifications of the paradigms I work with, to get knowledge of their boundaries / problems. Google for popper paradigm kuhn falsification. F.e. en.wikipedia.org/.../Falsifiability is a result.
Good to hear a voice of an experienced programmer that is not following the crowd. I for myself did not give the matter enough thought to have a strong preference I think.
There is an H.S. Lahman quote to the effect that the thing about OO programming is that it has never been tried.
Consulting in Model-Based Development, Transformation, and Object-Oriented Best Practice http://www.cintegrity.com
gus> On Aug 27, 2015, at 11:06 AM, agent_008_nl wrote:I, on the other hand, do favor procedural code for the simple reason that no one has demonstrated (to me) that object programming is any better. To be sure, it has a certain appeal.
OO certainly presents a challenge for a procedural developer to get their head around - particularly when it comes to mapping the problem space to an OO model, and dealing with the DA layer.
Where I really like with OO is I can directly map the problem-space behavior of an identified entity directly to an object and then use that functionality all over the place, pass it around as a parameter, etc. - which is something I couldn't easily do with procedural code.
Tim, that reminds me of the transition from CHUI to GUI when v7 came out. It was a real struggle for lots of people. OO certainly has a higher level of overhead not only in learning but with planning.
Tim, I often agree silently but now you produce an incomprehensible text. At least for me. I do not think my understanding fails because I'm dutch. Plus I'm programming for a couple of years in oo progress now, besides doing other things, that should't be the problem either. It shouldn't be that hard to defend oo progress in simple terms. I understand, no need, almost everybody is convinced, the voice pro is massive. And vox populi must be the truth, mustn't it. You have courts with juries don't you. The truth is a democratic and lucrative thing.
But oo/procedural/functional programming do not to offer the same possibilities in different languages. (Hope I added someting intelligent? :-). Progress is not the only language on earth (ditto, for Christ sake!). We are all caged! There must be links - to be found with google - to learn how to overcome positive thinking. Help! :-)