OO (was: OO vs CO)

Chris Pressey chris_pressey@REDACTED
Mon Mar 10 21:49:47 CET 2003

Bjarne Däcker wrote:
> Hello


> > I think the important thing to point out is: OO itself is not a
> > problem.  Becoming entrenched in and dogmatic about OO (or any
> > paradigm) is much more problematic.
> Engineers in all fields think in terms
> of the basic abstractions they have
> learnt, like resistors, capacitors,
> impedances etc or in software data
> types, functions, processes etc.
> The idea with OO seems to be to 
> reduce everything down to just *one*
> abstraction, which would make software
> a very unique engieering science. 
> I think that the reason for this is its
> attractions to management. To them
> software is just an amorphous mass
> so objects seem to create some form
> of order or structure.

I agree, this is part of the desire for objects.

(Although - perhaps this goes without saying - I don't think it's best
idea.  It shocks me how quickly it can complexify a problem.  If you
try to reduce everything to a single abstraction, then that abstraction
is almost surely going to be more powerful than useful - you start with
objects, soon you have to deal with relationships, properties, methods,
singletons, homomorphisms, and who-knows-what-else...)

I think the other part of the desire for objects is that, to most
people, an object is something physical that you can see and hold (like
a book or a spoon) unlike a function or a rule or a process.  I think
this is a very comforting idea to managers, even if it turns out to be
an illusion when applied to software engineering.

> Bjarne


Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca

More information about the erlang-questions mailing list