Comments on: An introduction to object oriented languages http://www.geeksaresexy.net/2008/04/04/an-introduction-to-object-oriented-languages/ tech, science, news and social issues for geeks Tue, 14 Feb 2012 06:52:58 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: Miguel Lhttp://www.geeksaresexy.net/2008/04/04/an-introduction-to-object-oriented-languages/#comment-303401 Miguel L Fri, 01 Jul 2011 19:55:00 +0000 http://www.geeksaresexy.net/?p=2298#comment-303401 I usually find these kind of articles where technologies like Objective-C, Smalltalk or Prolog are criticized but by people with no real working experience (I mean systems which are used in production by users). The point of the article is that real object technology ("pure" as you said) is not worth just because of some kind of nouns explosion? Let me put it this way: Where is the support for claiming that having more options is better than having one just per se? More options = More things to learn = More time I usually find these kind of articles where technologies like Objective-C, Smalltalk or Prolog are criticized but by people with no real working experience (I mean systems which are used in production by users).
The point of the article is that real object technology ("pure" as you said) is not worth just because of some kind of nouns explosion? Let me put it this way: Where is the support for claiming that having more options is better than having one just per se? More options = More things to learn = More time

]]> By: Miguel Lhttp://www.geeksaresexy.net/2008/04/04/an-introduction-to-object-oriented-languages/#comment-303402 Miguel L Fri, 01 Jul 2011 19:55:00 +0000 http://www.geeksaresexy.net/?p=2298#comment-303402 I usually find these kind of articles where technologies like Objective-C, Smalltalk or Prolog are criticized but by people with no real working experience (I mean systems which are used in production by users). The point of the article is that real object technology ("pure" as you said) is not worth just because of some kind of nouns explosion? Let me put it this way: Where is the support for claiming that having more options is better than having one just per se? More options = More things to learn = More time I usually find these kind of articles where technologies like Objective-C, Smalltalk or Prolog are criticized but by people with no real working experience (I mean systems which are used in production by users).
The point of the article is that real object technology ("pure" as you said) is not worth just because of some kind of nouns explosion? Let me put it this way: Where is the support for claiming that having more options is better than having one just per se? More options = More things to learn = More time

]]> By: An introduction to functional programminghttp://www.geeksaresexy.net/2008/04/04/an-introduction-to-object-oriented-languages/#comment-133569 An introduction to functional programming Fri, 06 Feb 2009 13:55:15 +0000 http://www.geeksaresexy.net/?p=2298#comment-133569 [...] An introduction to object oriented languages [...] [...] An introduction to object oriented languages [...]

]]> By: Scripting Languages and the Webhttp://www.geeksaresexy.net/2008/04/04/an-introduction-to-object-oriented-languages/#comment-109533 Scripting Languages and the Web Sun, 05 Oct 2008 11:06:03 +0000 http://www.geeksaresexy.net/?p=2298#comment-109533 [...] An introduction to object oriented languages [...] [...] An introduction to object oriented languages [...]

]]> By: The ascent of scripting languageshttp://www.geeksaresexy.net/2008/04/04/an-introduction-to-object-oriented-languages/#comment-93765 The ascent of scripting languages Fri, 25 Jul 2008 12:46:29 +0000 http://www.geeksaresexy.net/?p=2298#comment-93765 [...] 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. [...] [...] 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 Reddyhttp://www.geeksaresexy.net/2008/04/04/an-introduction-to-object-oriented-languages/#comment-56901 Joe Reddy Tue, 08 Apr 2008 18:42:00 +0000 http://www.geeksaresexy.net/?p=2298#comment-56901 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 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: Joe Reddyhttp://www.geeksaresexy.net/2008/04/04/an-introduction-to-object-oriented-languages/#comment-276427 Joe Reddy Tue, 08 Apr 2008 18:42:00 +0000 http://www.geeksaresexy.net/?p=2298#comment-276427 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 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: Chiphttp://www.geeksaresexy.net/2008/04/04/an-introduction-to-object-oriented-languages/#comment-276426 Chip Tue, 08 Apr 2008 17:29:00 +0000 http://www.geeksaresexy.net/?p=2298#comment-276426 BTW, I like your <a href="http://swcses.eponym.com/blog/_archives/2008/3/31/3599390.html" rel="nofollow">Reflections on software development</a>. Subscribed. BTW, I like your Reflections on software development. Subscribed.

]]> By: Chiphttp://www.geeksaresexy.net/2008/04/04/an-introduction-to-object-oriented-languages/#comment-56885 Chip Tue, 08 Apr 2008 17:28:00 +0000 http://www.geeksaresexy.net/?p=2298#comment-56885 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. 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: Chiphttp://www.geeksaresexy.net/2008/04/04/an-introduction-to-object-oriented-languages/#comment-276425 Chip Tue, 08 Apr 2008 17:28:00 +0000 http://www.geeksaresexy.net/?p=2298#comment-276425 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. 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 Reddyhttp://www.geeksaresexy.net/2008/04/04/an-introduction-to-object-oriented-languages/#comment-56857 Joe Reddy Tue, 08 Apr 2008 14:13:00 +0000 http://www.geeksaresexy.net/?p=2298#comment-56857 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 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: Joe Reddyhttp://www.geeksaresexy.net/2008/04/04/an-introduction-to-object-oriented-languages/#comment-276424 Joe Reddy Tue, 08 Apr 2008 14:13:00 +0000 http://www.geeksaresexy.net/?p=2298#comment-276424 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 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

]]>