Gnome Goes JavaScript

[William Weaver]

>>I find that people, once properly indoctrinated into object orientation
>>dogmas, are frequently painfully unaccepting of the notion that there are
>> other programming paradigms that might be of value, slavishly trying to
>>force everything into the procrustean bed represented by whichever "OO"
>>language was the first one they got excited about.

That also seems like a pretty opinion laden and heavy handed stereotype. I
personally switch between Java, C, and tcl in my day to day and find that I
take the approach that makes the most sense for the task at hand. I
wouldn't force a C library into an object paradigm that would be best
served with another model but I also wouldn't deny myself a simple object
oriented approach in Java when it allows for large designs to be quickly
templated and abstracted in some cases saving me hours of work that are
replaced with fully featured and well planed for inherited objects.

Personally I believe each job should be evaluated as to what is the right
tool for it. By your definition I must not be "properly indoctinated" as I
maintain free choice about how I choose to approach problems. I would
suggest though before completely dismissing a programing
paradigm that is very popular you consider that there is often a reason for
such popularity. Sometimes it might be the right tool for the job.

William Weaver


On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Christopher Browne <cbbrowne-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org>wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 3:41 PM, William Weaver <williamdweaver-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org>
> wrote:
> >> I consider objected oriented programming to be a Bad Thing in general.
> >
> > I personally would like to know the reasoning for that. It seems a pretty
> > heavy handed dismissal of an approach to programming.
>
> I find OO to be a dogma that's desperately in need of some actual theory to
> support it.
>
> I'm not aware that there are two notionally "object oriented" languages
> that
> have identical models for what "object oriented" means.
>
> - They always have some notion of "classes", but a class in C++ isn't the
>   same as in Objective C or in Smalltalk or as in CLOS.
>
>   Except, it's NOT true that they "always have some notion of classes," as
>   Self, which is the basis for Javascript and Lua, doesn't have classes,
> using
>   prototypes instead.
>
> - They always have some notion of "inheritance", but C++, Java, Ruby, CLOS
>   have, across them, *extremely* different semantics.  And inheritance
>   requires having a class to inherit from, so "always" isn't quite as
> often as
>   one might have imagined.
>
> I find that people, once properly indoctrinated into object orientation
> dogmas,
> are frequently painfully unaccepting of the notion that there are
> other programming
> paradigms that might be of value, slavishly trying to force everything
> into the
> procrustean bed represented by whichever "OO" language was the first one
> they
> got excited about.
>
> What with the absence of firm theory (go looking; you'll find a *tiny*
> number of
> books with genuinely theoretical material on OO; they'll all fit in a
> briefcase),
> why *wouldn't* it be more interesting to look at the broad set of
> programming
> paradigms, such as:
>  - agent-oriented
>  - flow-based
>  - declarative
>  - functional
>  - event-driven
>  - concurrency
>  - parallelism (!= concurrency)
>  - logic programming (& unification)
>  - pattern matching
>  - generative programming
>
> --
> When confronted by a difficult problem, solve it by reducing it to the
> question, "How would the Lone Ranger handle this?"
> --
> The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
> TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
> How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gtalug.org/pipermail/legacy/attachments/20130205/e350c5ca/attachment.html>