RE: Emperor's new clothes - ACM followup.

[Lawrence Dickson <tjoccam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>From tjoccam Fri Feb  8 11:53:19 2002
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 11:53:18 -0800 (PST)
From: Lawrence Dickson <tjoccam>
To: lewando@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Emperor's new clothes - ACM followup.
Cc: tjoccam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-Reply-To: <NFBBJCCJIKMNJCAGOJMCOEDECBAA.lewando@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Yes, pretty sure. The "apparently" is due to the fact I have never worked
on an OO menu structure, but everyone says they work fine, and I can see
how the inheritance, etc, would apply to menu nesting and events. I have
(as I said) watched OO (at least its C++ flavor) drag down two projects
that were simple data manipulators but with lots of live independent
communicating programs or hardware elements. In one case it never got
beyond the big scribble sheets; in the other case (I had learned, but
not enough) the background stuff worked and communicated but the OO was
so unfriendly to it that the front end development locked up solid. 
The former one was revived by a single programmer in C. The latter one
dumped the C++ for Perl and CGI, and is alive and well (though a little
over-centralized in my opinion). 

I cannot overemphasize how extreme these experiences were. In each case
the OO took over ten times as much effort, and failed anyway.

Larry
>From owner-occam-com-out@xxxxxxxxx Wed Feb  6 04:15:36 2002
From: "Andrzej Lewandowski" <lewando@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <java-threads@xxxxxxxxx>, <occam-com@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: Emperor's new clothes - ACM followup.
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 07:15:19 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <200202042333.g14NX4r20166@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700
Precedence: bulk



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lawrence Dickson [mailto:tjoccam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
 
> 
> I think Jim and Andrzej both missed Dyke's point. Of course tools like
> OO have their value IN RESTRICTED AREAS: for instance, OO is excellent
> (apparently) for point-and-click menu applications with lots of 
> screens. It was a "tool to manipulate data" that bollixed it. 
       
Are you sure that you know what you are talking about?...

A.L.