Polymorphism sucks [Was: Paradigms which way to go?]
in [OOP]
|
From: Gerry Quinn on 9 Jun 2005 07:42 In article <5wCpe.3592$_A5.159(a)newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>, phlip_cpp(a)yahoo.com says... > Gerry Quinn wrote: > > > > > To say "OO is about polymorphism", in short, is nonsense. > > > > > > Definitions, in engineering, should be short, useful, and distinct. Long > > > rambling definitions don't help discussions. > > > > In the first sentence, you left out "correct". > > Humans make engineering up to solve problems. Incorrect definitions would > not be useful. That was, of course, my point. - Gerry Quinn
From: Daniel Parker on 9 Jun 2005 09:07 "Robert C. Martin" <unclebob(a)objectmentor.com> wrote in message news:cmqda1lgqhsfd2e40vdvkcvv3006uajfcd(a)4ax.com... > > The bottom line for OO is that it is a technique for managing > dependencies and reducing coupling; and the primary tool for achieving > that is polymorphism. > It seems to me that the substantative content of OO is ADT's, the rest is stories. While ADT's are good things to have, they can be used to reduce coupling or increase it, remove dependenicies or insert them, so it's hard to see that as a defining characteristic of anything except "best practices." Regards, Daniel Parker.
From: Phlip on 9 Jun 2005 09:54 Gerry Quinn wrote: > unclebob says... > > >Gerry Quinn wrote: > > > > >> To say "OO is about polymorphism", in short, is nonsense. > > > > This was cross posted to comp.object, so I'm not sure of the context. > > Taken on its own, the above statement is less than accurate. > > The context was that is was a response to a poster who made the false > statement (and it was not qualified by context) that "OO is about > polymorphism". Good luck, Gerry. -- Phlip http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki?ZeekLand
From: Daniel Parker on 9 Jun 2005 10:26 Gerry Quinn wrote: > In article <5wCpe.3592$_A5.159(a)newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>, > phlip_cpp(a)yahoo.com says... > > Gerry Quinn wrote: > > > > > > > To say "OO is about polymorphism", in short, is nonsense. > > > > > > > > Definitions, in engineering, should be short, useful, and distinct. Long > > > > rambling definitions don't help discussions. > > > > > > In the first sentence, you left out "correct". > > > > Humans make engineering up to solve problems. Incorrect definitions would > > not be useful. > > That was, of course, my point. > What does it mean to say that definitions are "incorrect"? Surely the best that we can hope for is that they are clear and unambiguous. Regards, Daniel Parker
From: Chris Dollin on 9 Jun 2005 10:53
Daniel Parker wrote: > What does it mean to say that definitions are "incorrect"? When the concept they name is supposed to be covered by the definition, but is not, and to a misleading extent. For example, consider these pseudo-definitions: A vegetable is a plant that eats flies. Paper is thin processed wood for lighting fires. A telephone is any instrument for contamination. A capital city is one spelt in upper case, eg LONDON. A field is a set S plus a function f: S x S -> S. An automobile is a vehicle with an engine. -- Chris "electric hedgehog" Dollin It's called *extreme* programming, not *stupid* programming. |