feedMore on Repetition, Generativity, and Patterns
November 27, 2002 | 
co.mments
I got some responses back from comp.object, some of them scathing, (hey, it's a hostile audience).
Thinking about it more and reading a .pdf linked from the essay, rpg's saying what he's always being saying - the software isn't good enough, nor is how we go about making it. It is a through provoking piece - but I could still do without the tabloid style title.
Unlce Bob Martin
It's a wonderful article full of great points and compelling argument. The title has nothing to do with the content. The title was simply a ploy to get people to read the article. His whole, laudable, point is that OO is a good tool, but we can't stop looking for other good tools. Amen!
Daniel T: :
"That's because it's shot full of fallacies. If he made a logical argument, and had any evidence to back it up, that would be different..."
Phil Thompson: :
"He seems to be arguing more against static typing than object orientation. He makes the observation that the statically-typed vision of OO (C++, Java, C#) took over as the dominant viewpoint whereas early on the more dynamic view of things OO (SmallTalk, Lisp) held sway and that this static view dominatinance led to a loss of diversity in thinking about OO - and on this point I would tend to agree with him. "
Jim McFarland:
"I didn't see him speak at OOPLSA, but I did skim over the article at his web site. From a quick look, I would say he makes some good points. When I get a chance, I will read/study the article in detail and comment more."
November 27, 2002 10:58 AM