Mozilla, License (again), PPG, GPGME
ajs at ajs.com
Mon Mar 18 15:27:01 CET 2002
On Sun, 2002-03-17 at 23:29, Peter Gutmann wrote:
> Arno Wagner <wagner at tik.ee.ethz.ch> writes:
> >Just for the record that is
> > M- Does OO sync with how we think?
> > Hatton, L.
> > IEEE Software , Volume: 15 Issue: 3 , May-June 1998
> > Page(s): 46 -54
> There are a number of other analyses of OO available which point out problems,
> including some OO aspects which are so problematic that they can be used as
> warning signs for code bugs:
It has always been my impression that OO was going through a stage where
it was the new technique, but that in the long run, we'd learn to
incorporate the OO paradigm into our toolbox without letting it take
over every line of code produced (just as many features of functional
programming have been absorbed by higher-level procedural languages like
Perl, Python, etc).
The idea that thing X is of class Y, which is a sub-class of Z makes
sense, and IS the way we think about certain aspects of our world. It
is, if you will pardon the metaphor, our noun-think. We also have a
verb-think which is mostly procedural in nature: "go to the store. buy
eggs. come home. cook eggs." You will note that we do not use the
passive voice by default: "I will have been caused to go to the store.
The eggs will be cooked now."
Until programming *techniques* begin to mature to the point where we can
flow between the paradigms, we will continue to mis-apply them and
thereby increase the complexity of our code.
More information about the Gnupg-devel