Polymorphism sucks [Was: Paradigms which way to go?]
in [OOP]
|
From: Gerry Quinn on 9 Jun 2005 11:53 In article <MSXpe.2979$jS1.2715(a)newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>, phlip_cpp(a)yahoo.com says... > Gerry Quinn wrote: > > > > > > >> To say "OO is about polymorphism", in short, is nonsense. > > > > > > This was cross posted to comp.object, so I'm not sure of the context. > > > Taken on its own, the above statement is less than accurate. > > > > The context was that is was a response to a poster who made the false > > statement (and it was not qualified by context) that "OO is about > > polymorphism". > > Good luck, Gerry. It turns out that it was a paraphrase of something you essentially did say several times on this thread. You also contradicted it. And you mixed it in with admonitions about test driven development and heaven knows what else. Pardon me for mistaking wodges of random contradictory context for no context. - Gerry Quinn
From: Phlip on 9 Jun 2005 12:44 Gerry Quinn wrote: > To say "OO is about polymorphism", in short, is nonsense. Then Gerry Quinn wrote: > It turns out that it was a paraphrase of something you essentially did > say several times on this thread. So it's my fault you implied that OO is not about polymorphism? Or are you backing down from your position that OO is not about polymorphism? Or do you still claim OO is not about polymorphism? -- Phlip http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki?ZeekLand
From: Gerry Quinn on 9 Jun 2005 14:49 In article <Bl_pe.13717$Oq7.8924(a)newssvr33.news.prodigy.com>, phlip_cpp(a)yahoo.com says... > Gerry Quinn wrote: > > > To say "OO is about polymorphism", in short, is nonsense. > > Then Gerry Quinn wrote: > > > It turns out that it was a paraphrase of something you essentially did > > say several times on this thread. > > So it's my fault you implied that OO is not about polymorphism? No, just thought you were rejecting the charge that that was what you said, so I clarified where the words (which may have been mine) came from. Also I said it was stated devoid of context, and in this I was wrong. > Or are you backing down from your position that OO is not about > polymorphism? No. > Or do you still claim OO is not about polymorphism? Yes. - Gerry Quinn
From: Phlip on 9 Jun 2005 15:13 Gerry Quinn wrote: > > Or do you still claim OO is not about polymorphism? > > Yes. Then I pick a new word, fOO. The definition of "fOO" is "a style of programming that leverages jump-tables, or their equivalents, to bind behaviors to messages at runtime." With this word fOO, I can identify BASIC as "not fOO". VB Classic is "almost fOO", and VB.NET is "fOO". I can identify a program written in Smalltalk that stuffs all its statements into one big unstructured method as "not fOO", and I can identify a program written in C that uses pointers to functions stored in structures as "fOO". I can identify Encapsulation and Inheritance as aspects of the "leverage" term in my definition. They help make fOO integral to a system. My word fOO is easy to apply, because it's narrow. Find the jump-table, or equivalent, and we got fOO. My word fOO is distinct, meaning any two engineers can agree independently whether a system has my fOO. The easy and distinct properties together lead to a third property. Because fOO relates to very important programming topics, and because two engineers who know my definition of fOO can say "fOO" to each other all day and know what each other mean, that makes my definition useful. Definitions should be easy to apply, distinct, and useful. In terms of "correct", what is the difference between my word "fOO" and this "OO" word you use? -- Phlip http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki?ZeekLand
From: topmind on 9 Jun 2005 16:09
> Uncle Bob may be guilty of many things, but failure to provide > code samples is not one of them. Why don't you pick one of the articles > from his web site, or take a fragment from one of his books... For one, I don't do C++. Second, his web-site examples are almost exclusive about device drivers. I don't dispute that OO may do device drivers better. You win that one by default. However, there is more to software than device drivers. Are there any code examples that demostrate "reduced coupling" besides device driver and animal examples? -T- |