Critique of Robert C. Martin's "Agile Principles, Patterns, and Practices"
in [OOP]
|
From: Mike on 6 Mar 2007 14:42 > > regarding the discipline of OOD. Your casually negative comments about > > GOF indicate that your examination of the field has been cursory at > > best. > > > In short, you are too loud about something you know too little about. > > The problem is YOU, not me. You either don't understand the scientific No, as a 3rd party bystander to your rant, it is you, "topinyourownmind". And you should take the advice. Study, research, read more books, do more work (of the 400 odd messages on this list most are your arrogant e-mails. Seriously, with your attitude and experience, do you actually have any work? I wonder how many apps you've actually written following your anti-SQL, anti-OO agenda. They must be pretty small trivial apps I'd imagine especially if Xbase is your tool of choice. > process, or don't care to use it. For example, you have repeatedly > insisted that wrapping SQL in methods/functions makes "programs easier > to understand". Attempts at clarification have been fruitless. Thus, No, your stubborness is the issue, it's obviously been attempted in numerious e-mails. > the possibility that you are mistaking personal preference in OO as > objective evidence is quite high. > > And, your rudeness made me sorry I bought your damned book and put > money into your patronizing little pocket. > Whoa. Who is the rude one here? You. > OO needs good teachers, not mean preachers. > Sounds to me like you're having trouble fathoming OO. Don't attack the messenger. You could be a little less rude and insulting to someone who has valiantly attempted to explain some very difficult concepts, of which you now seem to obviously have no interest in learning. If you can't understand it, don't like it, fine. But no need to call the folks names that live and breathe this stuff, and use it in practice for a living. Keep it to yourself.
From: Daniel Parker on 6 Mar 2007 18:09 On Mar 6, 4:12 pm, "topmind" <topm...(a)technologist.com> wrote: > > Blah blah blah. Where is the proof that OO is objectively better. I am > tired of the OO hype and will fight it to the end. > But the hype ended long ago, honest. The OO magazines are gone, the conferences are mostly gone, nobody (okay, almost nobody) cares about executable UML anymore. There's nothing left to fight. What's left has been incorporated into the standard programming languages, and standard approaches to programming. The hype has moved on, check out ... SOA!!! Time to move to a different news group. Best regards, Daniel
From: topmind on 6 Mar 2007 18:47
Daniel Parker wrote: > On Mar 6, 4:12 pm, "topmind" <topm...(a)technologist.com> wrote: > > > > Blah blah blah. Where is the proof that OO is objectively better. I am > > tired of the OO hype and will fight it to the end. > > > But the hype ended long ago, honest. The OO magazines are gone, the > conferences are mostly gone, nobody (okay, almost nobody) cares about > executable UML anymore. There's nothing left to fight. What's left > has been incorporated into the standard programming languages, > and standard approaches to programming. Being in the language does not necessarily mean people are using it. Even many OO proponents claim that "true" OO is under-utilitized and the developers are putting procedures in OO clothing. (OO is common in packaged API's, but not so much in custom domain-specific designs.) And even if they are, established bad ideas are just as bad as new bad ideas. For example, IMS was established for about 15 years or so even though in hindsight relational looks like a better technology. If R folks didn't push, then IMS may still be common. You seem to be advocating such a give-in stance. > The hype has moved on, check > out ... SOA!!! Time to move to a different news group. > > Best regards, > Daniel -T- |