In Smalltalk, you can redefine operators, make a custom metaclass and do all sorts of "cool" things. In LISP, you can have it reprogram itself, etc. Do these powerful features of those languages mean I can do foolish things like goto? Sure. But they also enable me to solve some tough problems very elegantly.
Can aspects lead to code as bad as goto? Sure. So can OO and everything else. Any fool with a hammer can break a window. Does that mean that hammers are bad design? On 4/28/05, Gino Tesei <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Reading yesterday news I remained rather shocked to find this link to > a Forrester research > > <http://www.forrester.com/Research/Document/Excerpt/0,7211,36794,00.html> > > From the article: <<Aspect-oriented programming (AOP) is intended to > address common problems that object-oriented programming (OOP) doesn't > address well, plus some problems that OOP itself created. However, AOP > is a risky solution: It is a very generic mechanism for solving some > very specific concerns and has been likened to a kind of "GOTO" > statement for OOP. Like GOTO, it can cause more harm than good.>> Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tech4all/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
