> Lähettäjä: "Trans" <transfire@gmail.com>
> Aihe: Re: FYI: what's OOP's jargons and complexities?
>
> Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
> > On Sun, 30 Jan 2005, Trans wrote:
> >
> > > So then you end up writing even crappier programs anyway b/c you
> don't
> > > really get the model the way it ought to be. So what's the point?
> Worse
> > > you don't even realize it till you go to add the last little
> feature
> > > and realize it screws the whole model up, and the only way to get
> it in
> > > there is to write a god aweful hack.
> >
> > And how is it terribly different in a program that carefully avoid
> using
> > any OOP feature (except for the fact that, by choice, you don't use
> any
> > OOP constructs to simplify the system, or just paraphrase your way
> into
> > equivalent but different-looking concepts) ?
>
> Really just in that it's easier to code -- IMHE (Experience).
If you have such trouble with OOP even after trying for a long time,
you shouldn't code OO--and I don't mean this in a derogatory way.
There's no point in struggling with it if you're more productive with
a functional or imperative paradigm.
OO is popular and considered easy because it maps (so far) the most
naturally to the way the human brain reasons and organizes things. It
just doesn't work the same way for everyone. At the risk of sounding
evangelical:
You shouldn't need to concentrate on OO or *try* to use it. You'd
simply figure out the problem space and it should neatly fall into
some sort of an object model without forced 'designing'.
If you decide to give OO another chance, the best thing to do is to
throw away any OO books and guides, don't worry about whether you're
doing it 'correctly' or not and just map the problem and write the
code. Once it works, you'll start refining it and taking advantage of
the language, maybe see if you've used any patterns, clean those up
etc.
> > Well, I say that alot of OOP code is crappy, and OOP is usually not
> > properly taught, because OOP is a new norm and some people have been
> too
> > enthusiastic and _naïve_ about it. Worst offender is Java.
>
> For sure. I leanred Java nad then decide to quick forget it. I want
> comuters to work for me not the other way around ;-)
>
> > > Oh I'd probably Logo in a heart beat if ther were any _really good_
> > > implementations. It's basically just slightly simplified-syntax
> lisp.
> >
> > Funny, I thought it was a complexified-syntax lisp, but less
> powerful.
>
> He he. Simplified for the human, complexified for the computer. The
> power is basically the same.
>
> > > And consider BASIC. Who would have ever thought BASIC would become
> a
> > > premier OOP langage? VB.net has the whole OOP thing going on now
> --in
> > > some ways even more so than Ruby.
> >
> > I didn't know VB.NET was BASIC... I thought it was just C# but with
> an
> > alternate horrendous sin-tax designed to appeal to sixties
> nostalgics.
>
> LOL :-) Some parts of it I miss actually. I especailly miss the VB RAD
> environment --that was pretty nice.
>
> T
E