|
|
Posted by Tony Marston on 11/16/06 11:51
"Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:CbWdnQMrCZUgHj3ZnZ2dnUVZ_rGdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Tony Marston wrote:
>>>
>>>And the opinion of other experts in the field - such as the ones I
>>>mentioned before.
>>
>>
>> Even experts disagree on what is or is not the *right* way in OO, so all
>> I am doing is agreeing with those experts who disagree with your your
>> favourite experts.
>>
>
> But NONE of the experts disagree on message passing. Check out what
> Booch, Rumbaugh or Iverson have to say, for instance. Especially Booch -
> the founder of OO techniques.
Message passing exists in non-OO languages, so it not something whch is
unique to OO.
>>>Your implementation violates some of the basic reasons for even having
>>>OO! And no, I don't believe MY way is the only way. But I believe the
>>>experts in the field know a hell of a lot more about it than you do.
>>
>>
>> I disagree. I am using the three basic principles of OO, as documented,
>> to achieve a higher level of reuse than I could by using non-OO
>> techniques.
>>
>
> And you're missing the fourth principle.
Message passing is not unique to OO, and is not one of the fundamental
principles. It is simply the way that one object communicates with another.
>>>I suspect you've had no real-world OO experience. Large, complex
>>>projects OO is designed to make easier. All of your experience is
>>>probably simple PHP pages you do yourself with no collaboration.
>>
>>
>> At least I have not been taught by people who don't know what they're
>> talking about.
>>
>
> So obviously you have no real world experience.
>
>>
>>>Your attitude would never survive in a the large scale projects I've been
>>>involved in (100+ programmers, 2 years+ time). But then it wouldn't
>>>survive the smaller projects I've been involved in, either - (i.e. three
>>>programmers for two months).
>>
>>
>> The size of project is irrelevant. The OOP principles are the same
>> regardless of the size of project. The only project I have ever been
>> associated with which failed disastrously was one where the system
>> architects got carried away with their fancy ideas of how OOP should be
>> implemented and produced something that was so inefficient and
>> unproductive that the client cancelled the entire project as soon as the
>> first live programs were produced. It was THEIR attitude that was wrong,
>> not mine.
>>
>
> If you had worked on something other than a 50 LOC web site you'd know
> that is complete horse shit.
Excuse me? I have produced administrative web applications with over 500
components, so that puts me way beyond the 50 LOC web site.
> Just because some system architects didn't know what they were doing
> doesn't mean OO is bad. It means only that they had no idea what they
> were doing.
But they were folowing allthe rules, so how could they be wrong?
> For the record - since starting with OO in 1988, I've been involved in a
> number of projects - small to large. And every project where people knew
> what they were doing was successful.
If your techniques produce something that works, then you are obviously
doing something right. It is only when the software does not work that you
can say that the techniques were wrong. My techniques work, therefore you
have no cause to say that the are wrong.
--
Tony Marston
http://www.tonymarston.net
http://www.radicore.org
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|