Andrew Lentvorski wrote:
On Apr 10, 2005, at 4:15 PM, Gabriel Sechan wrote:
And I'd note that he has a recursive definition on his hands. I'd also ask how using such a definition would possibly make a program better. At the end of which I'd probably be trying not to laugh, and I'd be reassured in my main reason for using C over C++ - that OOP people really overcomplicate simple things.
No argument there. People overuse OOP.
Nah. People overdo architectures and abstractions. It's a phenominon you can find with almost any language, but it tends to be more common with the higher level languages. I think it's 'cause programmers have too much free time on their hands. ;-)
The fortunate thing is that people have finally figured out that shallow layers of OOP can be useful if applied judiciously. Unfortunately, we have many instances of deeply-layered legacy API's that really shouldn't be.
Are you referring to deep hierarchies or something more along the lines of "+8" being implemented as doing "++" 8 times?
Classes, packages, namespaces, files, etc. are grouping features for managing engineering complexity--nothing more. They are not "new paradigms of programming"--they are simply housekeeping. Very *useful* housekeeping sometimes--but housekeeping nonetheless.
I agree that they are techniques for organizing code and managing engineering complexity. However, I'd argue that if anything is a different "paradigm of programming", it would have to be something that changes how you organize code and manage engineering complexity, no? I would agree that the "new" is silly vis-a-vis OOP or even functional programming, as they've been around for so long relative to procedural programming... well, it seems silly to call them "new".
--Chris
-- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
