Re: Design, Architecture, and Thought Processes (Was Re: shopping carts)
Re: Design, Architecture, and Thought Processes (Was Re: shopping carts)
- Subject: Re: Design, Architecture, and Thought Processes (Was Re: shopping carts)
- From: Arturo Pérez <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 19:20:40 -0400
On Tuesday, August 26, 2003, at 04:16 PM, Adam Chan wrote:
There are plenty of good OOP books or documents out there already.
Well, if you don't mind the argumentative tone, if there are so many
good books how come there aren't so many good engineers? I don't think
OOP is as natural as its proponents make out. Mind you, it's always
been natural to me but I don't think that makes me superior in any
way. Just weird :-)
I guess I would say that the emphasis on real world modeling that most
OOP books take is wrong. For most of what we do we are not modeling
real
world things. What is the real world analog to a single sign-on system?
Or how about search engines? What's the real world analog to a search
engine?
For
instance, the one (OOP and The Objective-C Language) included with
WebObjects isn't bad at all. I found an online version here:
http://www.toodarkpark.net/computers/objc/objctoc.html
This starts out with
Likely, if you've ever tackled any kind of difficult programming
problem, your design has included groups of functions that work on
a particular kind of data--implicit ``objects'' without the language
support.
Almost none of the developers I've worked with view the world this way.
They
would all be happy writing one stovepipe function to do the whole task.
In fact,
the few times I've gotten them to split a problem up, two or three
revisions later
they've crammed it all back together. "It's just so much easier to
understand this
way."
Maybe we need a series of books like
Design Pattern Cookbook for C
Design Pattern Cookbook for Perl
Design Pattern Cookbook for C++
Design Pattern Cookbook for Java
etc
Not only "many developers are seemingly unable or unwilling to make
real use
of (OOP)", but also many of them simply have no passion on making good
software.
That's kind of an ad hominem attack; e.g. they're too fat/stupid/lazy
to do it the
right way.
If the developer doesn't see OOP in all its glory then there must be
something about
OOP that obfuscates the glory. Look at Perl. About the butt-ugliest
thing there
is in just about any metric imaginable except one: it makes developers
feel
productive. How come OOP doesn't make people feel productive? Note,
I'm not
saying that the OOP guys are not productive. Just that nonOOP guys
feel that
OOP slows them down. It's perception, not reality.
What is good software anyway? To them, it has output and doesn't
crash which they can show it to the boss or customer, than it is good.
Software engineer make good money and that is the only reason they
study
Comp Sci and become a developer.
That's not true anymore. All the good jobs are going to India :-)
Maybe the
only ones left will be the ones who care.
-------
WebObjects in Philadelphia. You want a cheesesteak with that?
_______________________________________________
webobjects-dev mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives: http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/webobjects-dev
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.