Polymorphism sucks [Was: Paradigms which way to go?]
in [OOP]
|
From: topmind on 12 Jun 2005 13:11 Daniel Parker wrote: > "topmind" <topmind(a)technologist.com> wrote in message > news:1118546740.145313.205320(a)g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > Jeff Brooks wrote: > >> > >> OO is the standard right now. > > > > That is hogwash. Most developers do not use OO, just OO languages. > > I suspect that's probably true, more and more of them are plugging their > code into OO frameworks, and using classes designed according to OO > principles, but they themselves are not using OO techniques. Switch > statements come naturally to them, no good to speak to them of polymorphism, > polymorphism would only frighten them. Switch/case statements are more flexible. If the options grow apart or become non-mutually-exclusive, then it is easier to mutate a case statement to an IF statement or something else. Polymorphism requires bigger-scale overhauls to move from IS-A to HAS-A. http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/bank.htm#fee (C-style switch/case syntax is ugly and should be overhauled, by the way. The break statement is just plain archaic and stupid. But, that is the fault of C, not procedural.) And many of the OOP interfaces to these other services are not significantly different from Fortran graphics and math libraries I used to use as an intern way back when. If OO adds any improvement to them, it is incremental and subtle, not revolutionary. > > Regards, > Daniel Parker -t-
From: Laurent Bossavit on 12 Jun 2005 15:05 > You talk about "having everything for X in one place" above. Well, > relational makes it easier to group stuff in one place as needed. Sure. I'm not about to argue there is One True tool for abstraction. This thread was about uses of polymorphism; I got down to cases. > It is impossible to put all related factors in one place at the same > time in a 3D world, so as-needed dynamacy of view is helpful. Absolutely agreed. > OO just hardwires one particular view into the code. Get meta. Not particularly. Some OO languages lack the abstraction tools necessary to go meta, such as "metasyntactic abstraction", reflection, introspection... The good ones have such mechanisms. Laurent
From: Patrick May on 12 Jun 2005 14:59 "topmind" <topmind(a)technologist.com> writes: > > At the very least, you could support your claims regarding > > polymorphism by publishing enough of your code to allow comparison > > with FitNesse. > > It sounds like too many different applications are rolled into one > to compare anyhow. It sounds like you are evading the issue. If you can show that you have a superior means of addressing a requirement that is addressed via polymorphism in FitNesse, it would provide a reason to take your claims seriously. If you cannot, that provides valuable information as well. Sincerely, Patrick ------------------------------------------------------------------------ S P Engineering, Inc. | The experts in large scale distributed OO | systems design and implementation. pjm(a)spe.com | (C++, Java, Common Lisp, Jini, CORBA, UML)
From: topmind on 12 Jun 2005 15:27 > How do you explain that there is OO software that can process > shapes if OO has problems with it? I never said that OO does not run. That is not the issue. One can write shapes software in assembler also. Actually, it is a classification issue being discussed, not so much a software issue. There is no One Right shapes taxonomy. Difference choices favor different uses. -T-
From: topmind on 12 Jun 2005 15:28
> >> > >> Like {referring to me) "you were the one bragging about how great > >> polymorphism is," > >> > > Those are claims about debate issues, not paradign claims. > > > Not even that. They are simply statements that are not true. How about you clarify your position for the audience then. > > Regards, > Daniel Parker -T- |