I thought that in 99% of cases it was used to show how useful AOP is, and thereafter limited to logging so that the program remains readable (i.e., the code does what the code says).
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 5:46 PM, Kevin Wright <[email protected]> wrote: > I guess the biggest issue with AOP is that in 99% of cases it's used to > shoehorn FP concepts into a mostly-object-oriented-but-not-functional[1] > language. > > You take an object, you pick on some of the methods therein and wrap them > with around advice, before advice, after advice, etc. In FP these methods > can be treated as first-class concepts in their own right. You take a > function, pass it to a function, return a function; there's no need to build > these specialist constructs just to access methods that can only ever exist > within the context of an object. > > After all... In the kingdom of nouns, the only thing you can ever do with a > verb is execute it. Put verbs on an equal footing with nouns and you can > deal with them directly, no tricky marshalling required. > > > [1] Yes, mostly, primitives and static members are most emphatically *NOT* > object-oriented. > > > > > > On 20 December 2011 20:22, Alex Turner <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I could ask what's wrong with AOP, but you're probably thinking about >> the same as me on that one. I like to call code like that "god" >> code. It's the hidden mysterious force that can really screw things >> up without almost anyone knowing where it came from and why, or being >> able to fathom it's intention. Sometimes though - a little divine >> intervention is handy :D >> >> On Dec 20, 12:05 am, Casper Bang <[email protected]> wrote: >> > On Saturday, December 17, 2011 3:41:42 AM UTC+1, Alex Turner wrote: >> > >> > > I wrote AOP code last year, and was told off because no one else could >> > > understand AOP yet (srsly?), and so it couldn't be maintained >> > >> > Ah, now I understand better. You had me interested until you mentioned >> > AOP. >> > :) >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "The Java Posse" group. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> [email protected]. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. >> > > > > -- > Kevin Wright > mail: [email protected] > gtalk / msn : [email protected] > quora: http://www.quora.com/Kevin-Wright > google+: http://gplus.to/thecoda > twitter: @thecoda > vibe / skype: kev.lee.wright > steam: kev_lee_wright > > "My point today is that, if we wish to count lines of code, we should not > regard them as "lines produced" but as "lines spent": the current > conventional wisdom is so foolish as to book that count on the wrong side of > the ledger" ~ Dijkstra > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "The Java Posse" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
