Subscribe: Comments on: An introduction to object oriented languages
http://www.geeksaresexy.net/2008/04/04/an-introduction-to-object-oriented-languages/feed/
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade A rated
Language: English
Tags:
fact  introduction object  joe reddy  joe  languages  object oriented  object  objects  oriented languages  pure design  pure  put  support 
Rate this Feed
Rate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feed
Rate this feed 1 starRate this feed 2 starRate this feed 3 starRate this feed 4 starRate this feed 5 star

Comments (0)

Feed Details and Statistics Feed Statistics
Preview: Comments on: An introduction to object oriented languages

Comments on: An introduction to object oriented languages



Tech, science, cosplay and news by geeks, for geeks! We make technology sexy!



Last Build Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 17:15:04 +0000

 



By: Miguel L

Fri, 01 Jul 2011 19:55:00 +0000

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 L

Fri, 01 Jul 2011 19:55:00 +0000

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 programming

Fri, 06 Feb 2009 13:55:15 +0000

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



By: 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

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

Tue, 08 Apr 2008 18:42:00 +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: Joe Reddy

Tue, 08 Apr 2008 18:42:00 +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

Tue, 08 Apr 2008 17:29:00 +0000

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



By: Chip

Tue, 08 Apr 2008 17:28:00 +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: Chip

Tue, 08 Apr 2008 17:28:00 +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

Tue, 08 Apr 2008 14:13:00 +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: Joe Reddy

Tue, 08 Apr 2008 14:13:00 +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