From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <3e1162e60710010638j19e22665s5a7c527d08a430e3@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 06:38:30 -0700 From: "David Leimbach" To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] Re: X Window System In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_7212_30655756.1191245910817" References: <71610f5d19dfbf77220a337d912133a9@quanstro.net> Topicbox-Message-UUID: c92f767e-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 ------=_Part_7212_30655756.1191245910817 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline On 10/1/07, Charles Forsyth wrote: > > > it's ironic that the object-oriented guys have such > > a tangled web of external dependencies. > > i think that's absolutely typical of most large o-o things i've > had to read: not just external dependencies, but a real tangle > of snippets of code in overridden methods in a cascading class > hierarchy. hard for reasoning; bad for maintenance. i suppose it must > be easier > to write (although i've never found that to be true myself), > and that's why it's so popular. i don't really know. it's finally a > mystery to me. > but we digress... > > If OO stuff were everything it needed to be to begin with, then Aspect Oriented Programming and other techniques would not have been necessary. Hell even the Aspect Oriented "weaving" of code between or overriding existing methods was around in lisp a long time before it was called Aspect Oriented programming. Perhaps we should all be schemers or lispers instead... ------=_Part_7212_30655756.1191245910817 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline

On 10/1/07, Charles Forsyth <forsyth@terzarima.net> wrote:
> it's ironic that the object-oriented guys have such
> a tangled web of external dependencies.

i think that's absolutely typical of most large o-o things i've
had to read: not just external dependencies, but a real tangle
of snippets of code in overridden methods in a cascading class
hierarchy.  hard for reasoning; bad for maintenance.   i suppose it must be easier
to write (although i've never found that to be true myself),
and that's why it's so popular.  i don't really know. it's finally a mystery to me.
but we digress...

If OO stuff were everything it needed to be to begin with, then Aspect Oriented Programming and other techniques would not have been necessary.

Hell even the Aspect Oriented "weaving" of code between or overriding existing methods was around in lisp a long time before it was called Aspect Oriented programming.

Perhaps we should all be schemers or lispers instead...
------=_Part_7212_30655756.1191245910817--