From: Stewart Stremler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
begin quoting Gabriel Sechan as of Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 06:13:32PM -0500:
> >From: Stewart Stremler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >begin quoting Gabriel Sechan as of Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 05:36:16PM
-0500:
> >[snip]
> >> Bullshit. High level languages don't simplify code, they complicate
it.
> >> Inheretence, exceptions, templating, etc are all far more complicated
to
> >> understand than simple procedural code.
> >
> >I'm getting the impression that you might think that C++ is a
high-level
> >language. If that's the case... it ain't.
>
> Yes, it is. So is C, for that matter. Anything above assembly is a
high
> level language. The correct term for Java, Python, and its ilk is
"4GL"-
> fourth generation language.
"Higher than assembly" does not mean "high level language".
THats been the meaning of the term for the past 30 years. Sorry if you
don't like it, but thats the way it is.
> As for the OO
> snipe- face it pure OO languages lost for a reason- OO just isn't that
> useful. The reality is that OO was not the silver bullet everyone
claimed.
Who is this "everyone"?
The people who pushed OO.
Pundits get paid to identify the next silver bullet. If they're right,
great, but they get paid even if they're wrong. They don't get paid if
they fail to make Great Pronouncements. So it's best to ignore all the
"silver bullet" rhetoric as much as possible.
We can agree on something! Oh happy day :)
> It has its uses, but 99% of the benefit came from encapsulation-
something
> good designers were doing a decade before OOP.
Yes. It's an incremental improvement in technique. The underlying issues
are still the same: modularize functionality, decrease coupling, increase
cohesion, and manage complexity. And, of course, picking good names and
defining your data structures.
In some ways its an improvement. In other ways it isn't- I'm not sure
going from badly modularized non-OO code to badly modularized OO code or
overly complex class hierarchies is really a step forward- if anything I
think its a step back (additional complexity with no gain). But yes, the
base problems and solutions are the same.
Gabe
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
