what's the future of Object Oriented Programming
in [OOP]
|
Prev: Deriving - .NET example
Next: Polymorphism Downsides (was: what's the future of Object Oriented Programming)
From: Phlip on 10 Sep 2006 15:41 Rick Elbers wrote: > Am I excused when I dont understand what in heavens name you talk > about? Yup sorry - I was too brief. > I think you are absolutely right. While every application model could > be described in object terms, a lot of them dont need it. You don't use OO to describe application models. You use it when those models are too coupled. > Quite a lot > of money is invested an earned in essentially CREDO applications > (CRUD + Overview). Those applications might as well be constructed > using a good two-tier framework. If we, for instance, look at what > objects do in most applicatons using NHibernate or another ORMapper > you would be very willing to consider those "empty" objects more like > the "cost" of development then having anything to do with what OO > promisses us. I think here you simply describe object abuse. Is a CREDO application one bound to an Object Database? Do such databases force you to create too many objects? -- Phlip http://www.greencheese.us/ZeekLand <-- NOT a blog!!!
From: Rick Elbers on 11 Sep 2006 14:52 Philip, We seem to agree on the way we see things. No matter that the reality seems to be that a lot of those two-tier applications are constructed in object oriented frameworks( .net) en with object oriented libraries(Nhibernate for instance) and with a lot of property bag kind of "objects". Since there are quit a big bundle of them, and they also *want uml* I think we cant ditch those as being OO abuse. For a lot of people its their work to work that way with object, object frameworks and object libraries. I dont want to be elitair in the sense that I say "they dont get it, period ". Rick Op Sun, 10 Sep 2006 19:41:38 GMT schreef "Phlip" <phlipcpp(a)yahoo.com>: >Rick Elbers wrote: > >> Am I excused when I dont understand what in heavens name you talk >> about? > >Yup sorry - I was too brief. > >> I think you are absolutely right. While every application model could >> be described in object terms, a lot of them dont need it. > >You don't use OO to describe application models. You use it when those >models are too coupled. > >> Quite a lot >> of money is invested an earned in essentially CREDO applications >> (CRUD + Overview). Those applications might as well be constructed >> using a good two-tier framework. If we, for instance, look at what >> objects do in most applicatons using NHibernate or another ORMapper >> you would be very willing to consider those "empty" objects more like >> the "cost" of development then having anything to do with what OO >> promisses us. > >I think here you simply describe object abuse. Is a CREDO application one >bound to an Object Database? Do such databases force you to create too many >objects?
From: topmind on 12 Sep 2006 00:30 VV wrote: > > Borrowing an idea from a previous poster, I guess I could have created > objects to represent types of users at my sites. I don't think "types" is a good way to model users. "Roles", based on set theory, is usually more flexible, and if the differences between users are not complex enough to justify roles, then hierarchical categories are probably overkill also, and, hierarchies don't scale well. Roles are easily implimented in relational database many-to-many tables. -T-
From: topmind on 12 Sep 2006 00:41 H. S. Lahman wrote: > Reuse is nice but not a major consideration in using OO techniques. The > real objective of OO development is to create maintainable applications > in the face of volatile requirements over the product life cycle. > > To answer your title question, OO programming is still the only game in > town for producing maintainable software. I beg to differ. There is no evidence for this, at least outside of systems software. > Unfortunately there is a lot > of software called "OO" that is just C or FORTRAN programming with > strong typing. > > The long term future of OO lies in UML as a 4GL. Currently UML is the > only truly general purpose 4GL available and the OO paradigm's emphasis > on abstraction is ideally suited to 4GLs because it allows independence > from the local computing environment. UML is the navigational hell that motivated Dr. Codd to create relational. Sets are more change-friendly than webs of pointers because they are less shaped by initial uses and more by universal facts about nouns, REGARDLESS of how they are used. > > Currently we are just moving into a paradigm shift similar to the shift > from 2GLs (BAL) to 3GLs in the early '60s. In another 10-15 years I > fully expect 3GL programmers to be as rare as Assembly programmers > today. Currently the only vehicle in town for that shift is the OO > paradigm. IMO, OOP is 60's navigational ressurected by those who don't get the utility of set theory. OOP was a nice idea on paper, but didn't materialize to be nearly as neat as the initial shape and animal examples used to sell it. -T-
From: topmind on 12 Sep 2006 00:47
H. S. Lahman wrote: > Responding to Ram... > > >>[Apocryphal anecdote. A couple of years ago I saw an article in a > >>journal where the author actually claimed the first markup language was > >>invented in 1986. How soon they forget and repeat past mistakes. > >>Markup and scripting languages were very much in vogue in the late '50s > >>and '60s. But there was a reason why they were abandoned by the early > >>'70s.] > > > > > > Is there a source (preferably accessible via the Internet) > > where I can learn more about this, with names or examples of > > these languages and an explanation why they were abandoned? > > Not that I know of. Most online DBs weren't around prior to '84 and > there hasn't been a lot of backfilling for earlier work. Having been > there, though, I can provide some factoids. > > MLs were very popular for things like report generation where the > formatting was handled by markups. I forget the acronyms but every > computer vendor and a bunch of other people provided one. > > Scripting was also very popular, starting with OS Job Control Languages > used in the card-deck-and-batch processing days. They were also widely > used for initial interactive applications like online defect reporting > systems for OSes like IBM's TSO. At one point they were so popular that > an entire operating system -- Wylbur -- was constructed with scripts. > > Why were they abandoned? Maintainability. JCL is *not* the pinnacle of scripting nor markup languages by any stretch. The biggest problem with JCL is that it was stretched way beyond its original intention, kind of like SQL has been. Lisp is perhaps a better example of a scripting language that came out of the late 50's. Not that I would want to use it in production because it takes a long time to train your brain to track parenthesis in very monotonous syntax, but it certainly had the right idea. > > > ************* > There is nothing wrong with me that could > not be cured by a capful of Drano. > > H. S. Lahman -T- |