[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Is OO a deliberate fraud?


On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 11:10:05AM -0700, tjoccam@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> We need to go back to scratch, to static non-virtual assembly language
> design, and build all serious design in a higher-level language free of OO
> and other infinite metaphor. Once we control the harness, they can use OO
> if they want for what it is good for: manipulating graphic widgets in a
> GUI.

I'm not completely convinced that OO is good for this either -- makes for
good reasoning about the system's structure, but I've had issues with this
sort of thing and C++ in the past (Java suffers a bit less here).  Won't
bore you with the detail here; for the curious, http://frmb.org/rapp.html

On language design, we were pondering a while back about an occam-ish
scripting language for bolting systems together.  It's currently
incomplete, though there is a bit of a parser and execution engine in
the pipeline.  A description of what we were thinking about can be
found at, http://frmb.org/oscript.html


-- Fred

Attachment: pgp1uOXIevO6i.pgp
Description: PGP signature