On Tue, 5 Oct 1999, Juergen Pfitzenmaier wrote:
> Kevin Atkinson wrote:
> > Do you not like OO at all?
>
> what good is OO for ? ;) OO gives me a framework/language to talk
> about objects (read entities) and claims that with objects programmers
> have the right tool to model real-world entities.
> But the main thing in the real-world are *not* entities, the whole
> thing is about applying some function to these - possibly nonexisting -
> entities. And OO gives me no tools to handle these functions.
>
> ok a bit provocative. I still see something good in OO. It provides
> a level of abstraction that wasn't there before but it's not enough.
Even through most problems don't truly fit in the OO paradigm, OO
still is extremely useful. GUI are a prime example of what OO is good
for. OO programs often tend to be very reusable in other cortexes--
something that Haskell scored lower than when compared to C++ and Ada
in the paper "Haskell vs. Ada vs. C++ vs. Awk vs. ..., An Experiment
in Software Prototyping Productivity" by Paul Hudak and Mark P. Jones
(http://www.haskell.org/practice.html).
And no I don't think OO is the solution to ALL problems and I
definitely do not think that everything belongs in a class (like Java
does). However, in many real word situations, it can greatly
simplify complex problems into something manageable.
---
Kevin Atkinson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://metalab.unc.edu/kevina/
