This is Klaus Havelund's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Klaus Havelund's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Klaus Havelund
Recent Activity
The problem I have with many arguments against OO is that they seldom are specific, but usually very generic, and hence they become hard to evaluate. Take the first comment by Paul Graham: "Object-oriented programming generates a lot of what looks like work. Back in the days of fanfold, there was a type of programmer who would only put five or ten lines of code on a page, preceded by twenty lines of elaborately formatted comments. Object-oriented programming is like crack for these people: it lets you incorporate all this scaffolding right into your source code. Something that a Lisp hacker might handle by pushing a symbol onto a list becomes a whole file of classes and methods. So it is a good tool if you want to convince yourself, or someone else, that you are doing a lot of work." Concerning the first part of this comment: is it a problem to write: class Math { ... } around your math functions? Second, he says: "Something that a Lisp hacker might handle by pushing a symbol onto a list becomes a whole file of classes and methods. " what? - what could he possibly mean here? Lists is a library class in Java. Allright. So much for that comment. The next comment is that of Eric Lippert: "What I sometimes see when I interview people and review code is symptoms of a disease I call Object Happiness. Object Happy people feel the need to apply principles of OO design to small, trivial, throwaway projects. They invest lots of unnecessary time making pure virtual abstract base classes -- writing programs where IFoos talk to IBars but there is only one implementation of each interface! I suspect that early exposure to OO design principles divorced from any practical context that motivates those principles leads to object happiness. People come away as OO True Believers rather than OO pragmatists." No, you don't need to write abstract classes and interfaces. In fact, most programmers don't do that even for big programs. I have this impression that people arguing against OO do not program OO themselves, and observe fragments of code, to which they react as if these fragments were proper representations of how OO code is normally written. Their arguments are based on existence proofs: there is exists a bad OO program, hence OO is bad.
Toggle Commented Mar 13, 2010 on Your Code: OOP or POO? at Coding Horror
Klaus Havelund is now following The Typepad Team
Mar 13, 2010