On Saturday, 30 January, 2016 16:03, Simon Slavin <slavins at bigfraud.org> said: > On 30 Jan 2016, at 8:13pm, Yannick Duch?ne <yannick_duchene at yahoo.fr> > wrote:
> > In my opinion (which some others share), OO is a bag of miscellaneous > things which are better tools and better understood when accosted > individually. Just trying to define what OO is, shows it: is this about > late binding? (if it is, then there sub?program references, first?class > functions, or even static polymorphism and signature overloading) About > encapsulation? (if it is, then there is already modularity and scopes) > About grouping logically related entities? (if it is, there is already > modularity, and sometime physically grouping is a bad physical design). > > There are a number of problems in using a relational database for object- > oriented purposes. One is that to provide access to stored objects you > need to access the database in very inefficient ways which are slow and > are not helped by caching. You can read about some of the problems here: And I thought the "Object Oriented" jihad blew up when it was discovered to be counter to productivity and performance in the 1990's and that it did not provide a single one of the "advantages" claimed by its mujahedeen warriors. Of course, it could be that there is not really very much of anything at all (if there is anything at all) that implements an "object oriented" architecture. It is mostly just glossing appearances and wrappers around inherently non-object oriented things. But then again, that just goes to show that OO is inherently flawed. OO is a dead horse. It is about time it was finally shot in the head and put out of its misery.
