Comments on: An introduction to object oriented languages

By: An introduction to functional programming

An introduction to functional programming — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 13:55:15 +0000

[...] An introduction to object oriented languages [...]

By: Scripting Languages and the Web

Scripting Languages and the Web — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 11:06:03 +0000

[...] An introduction to object oriented languages [...]

By: The ascent of scripting languages

The ascent of scripting languages — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 12:46:29 +0000

[...] Object-orientation can be a good approach for managing complexity, but languages that force the use of object-oriented notation usually add unnecessary complexity to almost every project. When Perl added support for objects, it did so in an optional way that can be freely mixed with non-OO code so that complex modeling can be achieved when needed, but otherwise not required. The syntax for objects was initially a bit of a kludge, but that seems sufficiently remedied in Perl 6. [...]

By: Joe Reddy

Joe Reddy — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 18:42:20 +0000

I’m glad. I would appreciate any thoughts from someone “in the middle.” I find many OO developers are either purists or the other extreme…anemic object modelers (as Fowler would put it). I appreciate anyone putting real effort into finding a balance.
-Joe

By: Chip

Chip — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 17:29:50 +0000

BTW, I like your Reflections on software development. Subscribed.

By: Chip

Chip — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 17:28:04 +0000

I think that a pure OO design is always possible, but not always desirable. Often, you end up talking about things that are irrelevant to the problem at hand — like constructing an ornate hierarchy of abstract classes that nobody will ever subclass again — in fact, they’ll probably have to dismantle that hierarchy completely as requirements change, because the abstractions are too specific and unidirectional.

By: Joe Reddy

Joe Reddy — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 14:13:31 +0000

Nice.
I like that you mentioned the hybrid-ness of some languages and that purists frown on this.
Would you all agree that when we are not writing a Game or “user-interface application” like a painting program or word processor that following a pure OO design is just not possible, or at least not feasible? In my experience, the number one culprit is the fact that entities are created and edited by admin users. If all I had to do was business, then my objects would never expose an attribute. However, I cannot have them display themselves on the 3 UIs I support, and some of their business logic results are useful for reports.

-Joe

By: The Early History of Programming Languages - Part 1

The Early History of Programming Languages - Part 1 — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 02:54:42 +0000

[...] We’ve just published the second part of this article right here: An introduction to object oriented languages You Might Also [...]

By: Chip

Chip — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 01:16:36 +0000

I think anytime a programming paradigm becomes a religion, we’re in trouble. I like Objective-C too!

By: Bill Mosby

Bill Mosby — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 10:34:29 +0000

I’ve been using Objective-C for a few years now, and love the “multiparadigmatic” nature of it. Gives the flexibility I need for performance while still making it convenient to take advantage of the most useful characteristics of objects.

By: links for 2008-04-05 -- Chip’s Quips

links for 2008-04-05 -- Chip’s Quips — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 08:34:54 +0000

[...] An introduction to object oriented languages For those who haven’t had enough of it yet. (tags: oop programming paradigms multiparadigmatic simula smalltalk java c++ c# objectpascal python ruby lisp perl php cobol synergyde inheritance encapsulation polymorphism) [...]