Jonah Thomas wrote:
> One of the early promises of OO was that great designers could set up OO
> systems that mediocre coders could then use, and the coders would find
> things arranged so simply that they wouldn't make mistakes. This promise
> has failed, probably inevitably. Instead we sometimes get mediocre
> designers making OO systems that get in the way for good programmers who
> come after them. Of course this is not exactly a flaw in OO, it's a
> misuse of OO. But the marketing promise that OO would be hard to misuse
> has failed.
Again with the unsup****ted statements. We're supposed to believe that
OO hasn't delivered on a promise because... Jonah says so? First,
demonstrate the promise isn't just a straw man argument you're
inventing. Then, provide something more than anecdotal evidence for the
promise not being met.
In the process of doing this, feel free to throw away marketing hype.
When you're at home watching television and you see a commercial for
Tasty Yumyums with happy people dancing around, you ignore it. You
ignore it (and the claim that Tasty Yumyums are the most amazingly
delicious awesome snack ever) because you're older than 12 and you've
got a brain. You can apply common sense and intuition. You can apply
experience. You can be skeptical.
So if you're able to avoid the allure of Tasty Yumyum's marketing hype,
I assume you can apply the same brain to other kinds of marketing hype.
If some OO vendor promises you a silver bullet, why do you accept it?
If some consultant says that by using OO, all your problems fade away,
why would you accept it?
|
