The Post-OOP Paradigm

Kallahar writes "American Scientist has an article up about Computing Science: The Post-OOP Paradigm. The article has a great overview of how OOP works, and then goes on to a brief outline of the possible successors to OOP such as Aspect, Pattern, and Extreme Programming. Also a pretty picture of OOP Spaghetti."

Comments

Re:OOP is frequently the wrong answer

[Tablizer]

Your initial example of 'students (who) objectize everything' is also flawed. Part of the trick to OO programming is that you must place more emphasis on arriving at proper abstractions. In general a properly abstracted system will require quite a bit less work than the equivalent procedural one.

I find that abstraction is relative. The proper taxonomy or interface for one need is often not the proper one for another need. Different users want to handle the same info in different ways.

Besides, how does one measure "properly abstracted"?

OO thinkers have focused so heavily on hiding implementation and implementation changes that they have lost sight of factoring, simplifying, and managing the changes in *interfaces* also. IOW, they fail to apply the same design rules to interfaces that they do to implementation.

For example, duplicate implementation is (properly) frowned upon, but duplicate interface elements and patterns are rampant in OO interfaces and API's and no OO fan seems to give a flying shit about such bloat and repetition. They are blinded by too narrow OO dogma IMO. They are so focused on fixing X because the dogma says X is super bad, that they ignore problems in Y.