Polymorphism sucks [Was: Paradigms which way to go?]
in [OOP]
|
From: Jeff Brooks on 13 Jun 2005 23:36 topmind wrote: >>Says the person who hasn't presented objective evidence >>supporting his position. > > It is my opinion that paradigm preference is largely a *subjective* > thing. Thus, there is not much to objectively prove either way. Then why do you keep asking for objective evidence from the OO guys? Jeff Brooks
From: Jeff Brooks on 13 Jun 2005 23:50 >>>Even if I did, does that give you license to also be an idiot? >> >>Stop shaking your head and argue. Learn how to make a coherent argument. > > I am not sure what your complaint is. Those are claims about debate > issues, not paradign claims. You are mixing apples and oranges. You seem to think "Even if I did, does that give you license to also be an idiot?" is an acceptable response. Resorting to insults isn't debating it's just childish. Jeff Brooks
From: Jeff Brooks on 14 Jun 2005 00:05 CTips wrote: > Robert C. Martin wrote: > >> That one is not so hard. Simply algebra can solve it without too much >> difficulty (I've done it). The tougher one is: > > Nah, the problem isn't the implementation. Its the fact that you have to > (in general) have to write a separate function for each _pair_ of > subclass types. Thus if you have the following sub-classes of shape: > square, circle, koch_snowflake > you will need to implement functions > square_with_circle > square_with_koch_snowflake > circle_with_koch_snowflake. > > Now if you introduce another shape, say a mandelbrot set. Then you need > to introduce another 3 functions: > {square,circle,koch_snowflake}_with_mandelbrot_set > > This means that you need to know _ALL_ other shape sub-classes out there > before you can actually implement the function intersects(). > > [I have deliberately picked some fractal shapes so that a certain > mathematical ignoramus (not you) doesn't start quibbling; however I am > _NOT_ certain that intersects() is actually computable for both the koch > snowflake and the mandelbrot set.] It appears you don't you understand what a fractal is. I would love to see you try to find a way to calculate an intersection between two fractals (not an approximation, but real fractals). Jeff Brooks
From: Jeff Brooks on 14 Jun 2005 00:21 topmind wrote: > Daniel Parker wrote: > >>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. One advantage of OO is that you can extend the "case" structure without changing code that calls it. For example: class Component { void draw(); } If you have a Window that has a collection of Components you can add your own Components and Window can use them without requiring changes to Window. Actually, anything that can use a Component can use your new Component without having to be updated. Jeff Brooks
From: Jeff Brooks on 14 Jun 2005 00:24
topmind wrote: > Yes, but they are essentially reinventing databases (just not > relational ones). If you want meta grouping and searching capability, > all roads lead to databases. What remains is whether to go with > relational or non-relational (navigational/OODBMS). > > People are realizing that text code by itself is crappy at managing > large-scale structures and the direction seems to be toward databases. > Even Class Browsers are starting to add query languages and forms. > Thus, eventually it will come down to a battle over which kind of > database I estimate. Ten years from now this forum will be filled with > navigational weenies fighting with relational weenies. What type of weenie are you? ;-) Jeff Brooks |