On Wed Jun 7 18:38:21 CDT 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > To which I'll probably get the response from someone: "OOP is > > pointless - > > you can do every thing OOP can do, using 9p and modular programming in > > C." > > OOP isn't pointless - but most supposed OOP code is just a poor > excuse not to understand your flow control. My annoyance is that the > cult of re-use that is associated with most OOP proselytization makes > the code bloat hugely - I'm as guilty of that as the next guy. > Compare the STL hash implementation with the the elf hash table > implementation - the latter works in 20 lines of code, the former > requires 769 lines of near-opaque code. Sure, it extends to any > object you have, but the development cost was huge. It's good to > have it, but then people mimic that style with substantially less re- > usable constructs that aren't nearly as functionally stable as > hash_map and hash_set.
you're really on to something here. 768/20 ~= 40. that may be a good proof that hash tables can't be abstracted from the stuff hashed. i'm not convinced by OOP -- at least in the sense that leads to STL hash tables. interfaces like those provided by plan 9 fileservers are much more compelling. /dev/draw seems to me much more object-oriented than anything i've seen in c++ or java. it's ironic that the oop crowd seems to be the biggest poo-pooers of plan 9. - erik
