Slashdot Mirror
Aspect-Oriented Programming Considered Harmful
kupci writes "The 'x considered harmful' cry is a little overused, but there is a Forrester report that discusses some of the pro's and con's of Aspect-oriented Programming, and includes some interesting links. It is mainly based on papers from the University of Passau. It's worth it just for Clark's 'COME FROM' article." From the article: "Aspect-oriented programming (AOP) is intended to address common problems that object-oriented programming (OOP) doesn't address well, plus some problems that OOP itself created. However, AOP is a risky solution: It is a very generic mechanism for solving some very specific concerns and has been likened to a kind of "GOTO" statement for OOP. Like GOTO, it can cause more harm than good."
Wikipedia linkage
In computing, the programming paradigm of aspect-oriented programming (AOP) centers on constructs called aspects, which treat concerns of objects, classes, or methods. The aim of AOP is to separate program code related to the main purposes of the application (its core concerns) from code related to secondary purposes (cross-cutting concerns).
For example, a telecommunications application might have a core concern of routing calls, while code for timing and billing those calls would crosscut the whole object hierarchy. AOP aims to separate the billing concerns from the core concern. It moves code not related to solving the domain problem from the business logic into a separate module. The application code no longer contains pieces of crosscutting concerns scattered across modules; instead, programmers maintain crosscutting concerns in aspects; this makes it easier to maintain both core and crosscutting concerns.
Any program has principled points (join points) where programmers can identify and modify the program semantics. In AOP, programmers specify join points using a language feature called a pointcut, and specify the behavior to join those points by using advice such as methods or functions. Some variants of AOP allow programmers to extend the types in the system. These features enable aspects to implement behavior for concerns that crosscut the core concern of the application.
"Powerful language constructs can be dangerous when misused"
Thank you for the wonderful advice and welcome to 1971!!
As for the GOTO comparison, it is disingenuous. The problem with GOTO is not that it is a flow control change, the problem is that it is an [i]unstructured[/i] flow control change. AOP is nothing if not structured, in fact its potential flaw lies in that the structures it represents can be so complicated the programmer can lose track. It's the absolute opposite of GOTO.
goatse.cx
There's a new idea in field I am incapable of getting a job in that is gaining in popularity among people I wish cared about my opinions. Buzzword I am dissing is intended to address common problems that buzzword everyone likes doesn't address well, plus something into which I have no insight. However, buzzword I am dissing is a risky solution: Complaint which betrays my ignorance and has been likened to somthing everyone hates. attack by analogy. Buzzword I am dissing will find some uses among people I secretly envy, but for the needs of (me) typical application developers, language gurus would do better to write something I can understand. My paper is important, pay me $50/page to read it.
At the risk of being modded troll, nuking my karma, being yelled at, laughed at, and otherwise folded, spindled, and mutilated, I'm gonna say it:
I like GOTOs. GOTO has it's place. Even in C++. Sorry all you purists, but there are times when it just plain works.
*runs and puts on Chinese wicker fighting suit and hides, trembling, behind a flame-retardant wall*
Nothing is inexplicable; only unexplained -Tom Baker, Doctor Who
Log.printLog("some message " + someObject.toString());
everywhere you want to log something. But with AOP you can used kleen operators (*, +, ?, etc) to add Log.printLog() to certain methods of certain objects. Aspects allow you to inject code into method call boundaries. But like all programming constructs it can be abused. This is because you might get an exception stack trace that indicates a specific method call has thrown an exception when the exception came from code inserted by an aspect. But other languages can be abused too (Perl anyone). So I think this type of critism of aspects says more about the critic than about the programming construct. I don't use C++ to implement logic evaluators (I would use Prolog or another logic or unification based language). Nor do I try to write OO code in LISP (despite the horrid OO extensions for LISP) because each language has it strengths and weaknesses. For each application choose the language that best suites the task.
On another note, I think these types of critisms are really from people who are afraid of learning new languages or skills. They have worked long and hard to get good at C (or Java or some other language) and don't want to have to learn another language. Well suck it up, there aren't many Fortran programmers anymore and if you want to keep working, you must keep learning new languages and skills. Not that you should jump on every bandwagon, but if I'm writing something that needs to be really, really fast I use C. If I'm writing something that needs to be maintainable forever and speed isn't that important I use Java. The best tool for the task.
"Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
The bad thing about AOP is that it adds lots of side effects to function calls and can thus make the program very hard to reason about. This is completely orthogonal to (purely) functional programming that intends to remove side effects thus making it easier to reason about programs.
Functional programming: f(1) == f(1) always, with no other effects to "global state" etc.
Imperative programming without AOP: f(1) != f(1) necessarily at every point of the code, as the function can access globals. It can also change the global state, so its effect is more than returning its value; it can have side effets.
Imperative programming with AOP: Same as above, plus the side effects may happen somewhere unrelated to the definition of f itself.
The big IT consultancies like Forrestor, Meta, gartner, etc are intellectually bankrupt. If you want an example, read the free article off of Forrestor's web page on IT metrics. It's absolutely worthless. Believe it not, it says that you should evaluate your IT department based on a balanced scorecard that is calculated by, among other things, the number of steering commitee meetings you have. Yes, you read that right, the more meetings the better your department is.
These consultancies ran out of ideas a long time ago, and are trying to turn IT ito some Six Sigma pseudo-science. It doesn't work, but idiots still buy into it because it sounds impressive.
Tristan Yates
You've attempted to assign C++ to a complex left-hand-side expression (GOTO+OOP). This is a classic blunder. What you probably meant was: "GOTO"+"OOP" == "C++".
In addition, you're overloading the use of strings to have orthogonal meanings, which is frowned upon. After all, using the standard string operator overloading, your left-hand-side "GOTO"+"OOP" is simply "GOTOOOP", which is clearly not equal to "C++" -- a good comment compiler would notify you that this expression always evaluates to false. A further refinement would be to introduce your own class and write the expression as:
LanguageFeature("GOTO")+LanguageFeature("OOP") == LanguageFeature("C++").
In the future, I hope slashdot will provide a better comment compiler that can automatically detect such simple mistakes.
And since Aspect-Oriented programming is a patented technique, basically nobody can legally use it unless you're a personal friend of the inventor.
So, who really cares if its theoretically any good, when legally it is worthless?
I've been following AOP (cautiously) for some years now. Here's a few salient points for those who don't have $250 to splash out.
The underlying principle of AOP is about "separation of concerns", a term introduced by Dijkstra back in 1974. Separation of concerns is a Good Thing[tm], but there's more than one way to do it. It's a conceptual thing more than it is any one particular implementation technique.
Both structured and OO programming offer techniques that allow the hacker to more clearly separate concerns: by organising their code into subroutines, modules, objects, methods and so on. The problem with OOP is that real world problems don't always break down into a set of clearly defined, independant object classes. In some cases you can end up with a problem fragmented into so many small pieces that you can no longer see the wood for the trees.
AOP tries to address this by allowing you to identify those concerns that don't fit neatly into an object model. These "cross-cutting" concerns are typically things like logging, debugging and security that affect many of the objects in your system. If you decide to change the way logging is handled, for example, you don't want to have to go and edit every single object that generates logging information. But that's often what happens in OO based systems - you design your class hierarchy with Products, Customers, Orders and other real-world entities in mind and implement them as "black-boxes" with internal functionality neatly hidden away. That's fine when the functionality really is local to the object, but not when it relates to a system-wide aspect like logging, etc. These are the kind of undesirable artifacts that can arise from the decomposition of a problem into objects.
However, that's not to say that there aren't ways of achieving the good parts of AOP in a non-AOP language. Many Design Patterns are examples of separating concerns. The Model/View/Controller and Model/Visitor patterns come immediately to mind. Going back to the early logging example, we could implement this in AOP fashion in an OO language, by creating a "Logger" object which implements all the logging functionality. Just make sure all your other objects delegate to the logger for logging rather than trying to do it themselves. Now you have all your logging code in one place, and you just have to worry about how you're going to pass the logger object around so that all your other objects can call on it... (and this is often the start of the rest of the problems...)
So AOP-a-like can be done in OO languages, but most OO languages aren't really cut out for it - you have to code the magic manually if you want it. Hence the rise of AOP languages (usually just bolt-on syntax additions to existing languages) that make this process that little bit easier.
AOP in Java does smell a little like GOTO, IMHO. In brief, it uses "join points" to connect different aspects together (e.g. call this logging method just before calling that other method). One can certainly argue that it's a more structured form of GOTO, but I believe the same fundamental problems remain: control flow jumping all over the place, with actions-at-a-distance waiting to catch out the unsuspecting programmer.
So my advice on AOP would be to treat it like OOP, XML, Java, and all the other "silver bullets" that over the years have claimed to be the next big thing that will save our collective software sanity. Recognise the problem that it's trying to solve, realise the benefits of the particular solution(s) presented, and ignore all the hype!
A very well respected (if a bit obscure) OO language is Objective-C. It has a few features that are analogous to aspects.
First it has categories, which allow you to add new methods, or replace the implementation of a method in a given class. You add a category to that class that includes, say, a replacement description method, and the new implementation replaces the old. Or you can add a path utility methods to the String class, as another example.
It also has "poseAs", which allows you to insert an object into a hierarchy. Say you have Class B which extends Class A. But you want custom behaviour to be accessible to all As children (including, for example, B). You create Class C, which extends A, and make it poseAs Class A. Now the runtime hooks all clesses that inherit A off of C, which replaces A. A still exists, but is in the background, providing normal inherited functionality to C.
These abilities were one of the things that made Objective C a very powerful OO language. In particular, it allows a particular kind of reuse, by virtue of allowing one to patch someone else's library without having source. So if you want to add the aforementioned path utilities to NSString, you just added a Category in your own code, and your code would run with the extended functionality in NSString (no one elses would, unless they used your category too). This means that often you can make the most out of someone else's code without a complete rewrite.
It isn't all powerful. There are access and visibility restrictions. It is also used to partition code for ease of organization and better modularization. Here's the point:
Because it is a well known feature of the language, you think in terms of categories, and you know to look for categories. This can be aided by tools, but you most definitely need to pay attention to them. But because of this, they are only "dangerous" if you aren't paying attention. And guess what! That's true of programming, period.
i - This sig provided by