|
|
Posted by Tony Marston on 11/03/02 11:51
"Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:T4SdnWif9KBWjDzZnZ2dnUVZ_oGdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> 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.
The mere fact that you call one object from another automatically means that
you have messaging. There is no special technique nvolved. It is just the
same as calling a non-OO function, just that you hae to specify both the
oject and the method.
> 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.
"Messaging" is just the same as "callng a function". There is nothing
special to it at all.
>>>>>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.
None, actually. That's because I make use of a large library of reusable
modules. Isn't that supposed to be what OO is all about, making maximu use
of reusable modules?
>>>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.
Something that works cannot be wrong just as something that does not work
cannot be right. If you cannot understand that simple concept you have no
right to class yourself as an "expert" (except in BS)
--
Tony Marston
http://www.tonymarston.net
http://www.radicore.org
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|