professional piece of BS is more like it... I read the article all the way through as well. He spends the first third of the article "defining his terms" so we can all be clear... spends the 2nd third of the article personally slamming other people's opinions because of their past or current actions, and then spends the 3rd third of the article enlightening us with his solutions which carry no weight or substantial proof to back them up.
For this to be a TRUE intellectual paper, he has to adequately specify the problem he's trying to address. (he doesn't... he's all over the board), Then, preferrably, establish the reasons behind the problem showing that he's done an analysis. (which he technobabbles his way through, then gives up and begins the personal attacks) Then give solutions and anticipated outcomes. (He rehashes already discussed solutions as his own without any evidence as to their potential effectiveness, or what particular part of his "problem" they'll solve.)
I've said it before, and I'll say it again... OOP DOESN'T WORK! It does not facilitate reuse, it does not improve code manageability (good architecture, in any style, is good architecture), it leads to slower execution times. Now, it's a good programming STYLE when used correctly... but it's not the solution to the world's software engineering woes.. that's still to come... And all of these OOP guys are figuring it out and trying to figure out how to keep the schools paying them the big bucks when the schools want them to churn out Visual Basic people... Meanwhile, the open source movement is doing what OOP was supposed to do... churning out high quality, reusable software that people are linking to in (gasp) non-OOP ways!! (the horror, the horror) because the high and mighty OOP guys in high-abstraction land forgot that you can't connect code without a good down to earth binary linking standard...
Slashdot Mirror
Guess the Justice Department got scared of MS sending the BSA after them, too...
professional piece of BS is more like it... I read the article all the way through as well. He spends the first third of the article "defining his terms" so we can all be clear... spends the 2nd third of the article personally slamming other people's opinions because of their past or current actions, and then spends the 3rd third of the article enlightening us with his solutions which carry no weight or substantial proof to back them up.
For this to be a TRUE intellectual paper, he has to adequately specify the problem he's trying to address. (he doesn't... he's all over the board), Then, preferrably, establish the reasons behind the problem showing that he's done an analysis. (which he technobabbles his way through, then gives up and begins the personal attacks) Then give solutions and anticipated outcomes. (He rehashes already discussed solutions as his own without any evidence as to their potential effectiveness, or what particular part of his "problem" they'll solve.)
I've said it before, and I'll say it again...
OOP DOESN'T WORK! It does not facilitate reuse, it does not improve code manageability (good architecture, in any style, is good architecture), it leads to slower execution times. Now, it's a good programming STYLE when used correctly... but it's not the solution to the world's software engineering woes.. that's still to come... And all of these OOP guys are figuring it out and trying to figure out how to keep the schools paying them the big bucks when the schools want them to churn out Visual Basic people... Meanwhile, the open source movement is doing what OOP was supposed to do... churning out high quality, reusable software that people are linking to in (gasp) non-OOP ways!! (the horror, the horror) because the high and mighty OOP guys in high-abstraction land forgot that you can't connect code without a good down to earth binary linking standard...
What's an OOP guru to do?
My thoughts for free...