From owner-freebsd-chat Wed May 19 22:54:34 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mail1.atl.bellsouth.net (mail1.atl.bellsouth.net [205.152.0.28]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E35614C83 for ; Wed, 19 May 1999 22:54:26 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from wghicks@bellsouth.net) Received: from wghicks.bellsouth.net (host-209-214-69-39.atl.bellsouth.net [209.214.69.39]) by mail1.atl.bellsouth.net (8.8.8-spamdog/8.8.5) with ESMTP id BAA26942; Thu, 20 May 1999 01:52:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from wghicks (wghicks@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by wghicks.bellsouth.net (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id BAA54009; Thu, 20 May 1999 01:56:11 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from wghicks@wghicks.bellsouth.net) Message-Id: <199905200556.BAA54009@bellsouth.net> To: Chuck Robey Cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: c9x (new ANSI C) In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 20 May 1999 01:14:51 EDT." Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 01:56:11 -0400 From: W Gerald Hicks Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org [my noise to -chat] > I keep hearing the comment that OO lets you visualize programming more > "naturally". Please find me a single 4 year old that forms ideas on how > to get things done (like dress himself) using an object oriented > approach. Similar to Stepanov's criticism? http://www.bml.ca/marine/stepanov.htm (An excerpt from this interview) Q: I think STL and Generic Programming mark a definite departure from the common C++ programming style, which I find is almost completely derived from SmallTalk. Do you agree? A: Yes. STL is not object oriented. I think that object orientedness is almost as much of a hoax as Artificial Intelligence. I have yet to see an interesting piece of code that comes from these OO people. [snips...] I find OOP technically unsound. It attempts to decompose the world in terms of interfaces that vary on a single type. To deal with the real problems you need multisorted algebras - families of interfaces that span multiple types. I find OOP philosophically unsound. It claims that everything is an object. Even if it is true it is not very interesting - saying that everything is an object is saying nothing at all. I find OOP methodologically wrong. It starts with classes. It is as if mathematicians would start with axioms. You do not start with axioms - you start with proofs. Only when you have found a bunch of related proofs, can you come up with axioms. You end with axioms. The same thing is true in programming: you have to start with interesting algorithms. Only when you understand them well, can you come up with an interface that will let them work. Cheers, Jerry Hicks wghicks@bellsouth.net To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message