|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Either you do it well, or you better not do it at all.
Bad Agile religion is really bad and wastes time beyond limits.
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Before Agile, we did SDM. If you can't agile, go SDM. We always delivered, and it works.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
It's an honest mistake that could even fool the human eye for a split second. They just want you to slow down and enjoy the view
|
|
|
|
|
I guess the Tesla must have floored it--and kept on flooring it. 
|
|
|
|
|
That's exactly what I would expect to happen.
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
"I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
|
|
|
|
|
Could it be that, four decades after object-oriented programming hit the masses, technology is outgrowing this paradigm? Again?
|
|
|
|
|
Edge cases and tenuous arguments. And the article mentions Erlang, a functional programming language.
I'll tell you a story. A major competitor used Erlang, and we had rewritten using OO. When our company went under for various stupid and nefarious reasons, that competitor acquired "our" product (I left a few years after the rewrite and was no longer there). The reason for doing this is so that customers have to replace the product that will now--so sad!--be discontinued. But our major customer refused and chose to fund the product directly. Such was the difference in functionality and responsiveness.
Functional programming has its uses, but mixing two paradigms is difficult, so you generally have to focus on one.
|
|
|
|
|
Greg Utas wrote: Edge cases and tenuous arguments.
You nailed it! The article takes edge cases and attempts to prove that OOP is dead.
It's such a contrived article because really the items mentioned have solutions but the author has contrived the article in such a way to say, "well, since there are problems with the technology, it is dead".
You can do this with any technology really. List only the bad things about it then pronounce the technology dead. Ok, so the author got the attention that s/he was seeking.
Also, in the author's example of the Copier class problem that they were referring to they always say, "in inhertance, you will have this problem". However, we've known for at least 15 years that inheritance will cause problems. Instead they should be using composition (and DI) to solve their problem.
The author has built a straw man argument -- well inheritance is a problem... Yes, it is and we know that and there are better ways in OOP to make things extensible and reusable but you are conveniently not mentioning them.
|
|
|
|
|
Curiously, inheritance has never caused me much trouble. Sure, I use composition too, but have no qualms about using inheritance when it seems to be the better approach (is-a rather than has-a).
I've never used (to my knowledge) dependency injection. It seems like an awful lot of boilerplate, and C++ already has enough. Also, much of what I've done is frameworks, and unit tests are no substitute for real applications when it comes to testing them. Applications are also much better at finding ways to reduce a framework's surface-to-volume ratio or make life easier for its users.
|
|
|
|
|
I agree. DI and composition can create bloat and complex software that is unnecessary.
Again, this is a thing of using things to the appropriate amount -- which seems to be the real problem. Devs often learn one way to do something and then use it everywhere since they know it so well.
And, yes, simple inheritance can solve problems and the code stays clean.
Everything needs to be evaluated related to the challenges at hand, but article writers can never say that.
|
|
|
|
|
Glad to hear this. I was prepared to don my asbestos suit. 
|
|
|
|
|
Is there enough straw to make all the author's men?
Selling your side isn't about just criticizing the other side.
|
|
|
|
|
Joe Woodbury wrote: Selling your side isn't about just criticizing the other side.
It works in politics 
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, exactly! So many straw man arguments that are just useless.
All the examples based on inheritance problems when that isn't how you'd solve the problem now.
You'd use composition. If the author of that article had read the first 15 pages of GoF Patterns book they would've known that.
|
|
|
|
|
Good grief: that article is an incoherent mess of conundrums and non-sequiturs, tied together with flights of ex-cathedra posturing. Historically inaccurate: ever heard of SmallTalk, and its ancestor, Simula (1967) ?
This howler takes the cake:Quote: Paradigms are a bit like religions. They’re good in moderation — arguably, Jesus, Mohamed and Buddha said some pretty cool stuff. But if you follow them to the last little detail, you might end up making the lives of yourself and of people around you quite miserable.
Who says that data structures tightly coupled to methods is a typical way of doing OO ?
fwiw: I am not a fanbois-partisan of OO, or FP; I like both, and do not see them as mutually exclusive.
«The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled» Plutarch
|
|
|
|
|
BillWoodruff wrote: I am not a fanbois-partisan of OO, or FP; I like both, and do not see them as mutually exclusive.
Exactly! They are both individual tools.
The author is saying hammers are bad because they aren't screwdrives.
Well, I guess screwdrivers are also bad, because they aren't hammers.
|
|
|
|
|
If your company has yet to embrace AI, you’re in a race against the clock. And by my calculations, you have just three years left. I'll just pull an all-nighter the day before it's due
And by some strange coincidence, this opinion brought to you by someone who's "co-founder and Head of Growth at AI services firm"
|
|
|
|
|
That's not an article, that's an ad. I need to report that, sorry.
Some idiot wrote: If your company has yet to embrace AI, you’re in a race against the clock. And by my calculations, you have just three years left.
I heard the same some years ago. I laughed in his face.
How is "OWL" doing now, hehe?
Bastard Programmer from Hell
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
I dunno, I read it again and it just seems like the bleating of someone who drank the koolaid and wants everyone else to join in. He does mention his company, but doesn’t push their services.
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
|
Imagine getting your paycheck, buying groceries, and paying your rent, all using fake money called PrimeCoin or something. In Bezos We Trust
Yeah, I know he's not in charge anymore, but no one remembers who the new guy is yet.
Jammy? Jazzy? Something like that? (no peaking)
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: Imagine...using fake money called PrimeCoin or something.
Who writes this drivel? Everything that pretends to be money these days is fake.
|
|
|
|
|
I only pay for my cat food and laundry detergent needs with gold bullion. 
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
Nah, that's what paper is for. Gold is for women!
|
|
|
|
|
This is company scrip and has a demonstrably bad history.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
