|
|
Posted by Jerry Stuckle on 12/18/52 11:51
Tony Marston wrote:
> "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.
>
I never said it was unique to OO. Variables exist in non-OO languages also.
The difference is that message passing is an inherent requirement in OO
languages, where it isn't in non-OO languages. You can, for instance, write a
complete program in C without a function call other than main(). Or in VB with
no subroutines, etc.
It's not possible in an OO program.
>
>>>>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.
>
And without it objects cannot communicate, so you have no program.
>
>>>>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.
>
"Administrative web applications"? ROFLMAO! Try a real program. > 1M LOC,
100+ programmers working for over 2 years. Or even something with 10K LOC - all
in one file, not a bunch of separate web pages.
I'll bet none of your "web programs" has more than 500 LOC on a single page.
>
>>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?
>
You don't read well, do you. Just because some system architects didn't know
what they were doing doesn't mean that OO is bad. It means only that they had
no idea what they were doing.
>
>>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.
>
Wrong, wrong, wrong. And unfortunately the attitude of too many "programmers"
like you who are "developing" web pages. You can get a lot of things to work.
That doesn't mean they are right. And you're "justification" has too many holes
to count.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|