People don’t understand OOP
-
Your tag line should have just been: OOPs?
I’ve given up trying to be calm. However, I am open to feeling slightly less agitated. I’m begging you for the benefit of everyone, don’t be STUPID.
-
To paraphrase: A lot of people can't give an academic definition of OOP, therefore, they don't understand it.
-
Interesting article. As a side note, Barbara Liskov was my undergraduate thesis advisor. I also had her as an instructor and she pounded into her students the difference between specification and implementation as well as the Liskov Substitution Principle. She was big into being able to prove the correctness of a program.
-
TL;DR - DRY is maybe a bit overrated. Even the article kinda gets it wrong when C# and C++ look the same. You can't really do multi-inheritance, you get to inherit from one and only one. You can load it up with interfaces to get composition, but it's only kind of recently near the same thing (because of newer capabilities of interfaces). Going hardcore with OOP also just doesn't make sense when the Wheel : CarPart exemplary starts to run into "well, nearly zero of our application objects really should be doing that if you want to actually maintain and test this code". It's not that OOP is bad. It's that some rigid adherence to a bunch of OOP paradigms is often comparable to restricting your dev team to no keyboards and using voice dictation only. It's not making things better or easier in much of any way. The real world scenarios just tend to prove out that while some of that stuff can be great, overdoing it can be a nightmare and make for code that just doesn't mesh well with reality because everything isn't : anything but most often more specific somethings.
-
TL;DR - DRY is maybe a bit overrated. Even the article kinda gets it wrong when C# and C++ look the same. You can't really do multi-inheritance, you get to inherit from one and only one. You can load it up with interfaces to get composition, but it's only kind of recently near the same thing (because of newer capabilities of interfaces). Going hardcore with OOP also just doesn't make sense when the Wheel : CarPart exemplary starts to run into "well, nearly zero of our application objects really should be doing that if you want to actually maintain and test this code". It's not that OOP is bad. It's that some rigid adherence to a bunch of OOP paradigms is often comparable to restricting your dev team to no keyboards and using voice dictation only. It's not making things better or easier in much of any way. The real world scenarios just tend to prove out that while some of that stuff can be great, overdoing it can be a nightmare and make for code that just doesn't mesh well with reality because everything isn't : anything but most often more specific somethings.
jochance wrote:
It's not that <insert paradigm> is bad. It's that some rigid adherence to a bunch of OOP paradigms is often comparable to restricting your dev team to no keyboards and using voice dictation only. It's not making things better or easier in much of any way.
At least in my experience, rigidity won't get anyone anywhere. That's what difficult about design: balancing between flexibility and ground rules. At least in KSS contexts.
GCS/GE d--(d) s-/+ a C+++ U+++ P-- L+@ E-- W+++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- r+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X The shortest horror story: On Error Resume Next
-
TL;DR - DRY is maybe a bit overrated. Even the article kinda gets it wrong when C# and C++ look the same. You can't really do multi-inheritance, you get to inherit from one and only one. You can load it up with interfaces to get composition, but it's only kind of recently near the same thing (because of newer capabilities of interfaces). Going hardcore with OOP also just doesn't make sense when the Wheel : CarPart exemplary starts to run into "well, nearly zero of our application objects really should be doing that if you want to actually maintain and test this code". It's not that OOP is bad. It's that some rigid adherence to a bunch of OOP paradigms is often comparable to restricting your dev team to no keyboards and using voice dictation only. It's not making things better or easier in much of any way. The real world scenarios just tend to prove out that while some of that stuff can be great, overdoing it can be a nightmare and make for code that just doesn't mesh well with reality because everything isn't : anything but most often more specific somethings.
jochance wrote:
TL;DR
I am fascinated by people tagging a text as "too long; didn't read", yet they have a lot of opinions about the contents of the text. To me, that sounds like "I just don't want to pay any respect to those opinions; I will pretend that I didn't read it, just to show my low esteem for opinions I disagree with". If you really did not read it, then stop after the "TL;DR". If you did read it, don't display your disrespect for other opinions by pretending you didn't, when it is clear to everyone that you did read it. Showing disrespect or low esteem is allowed, but not by pretending you didn't even care to read the text, when you certainly did. Telling an obvious lie is not the ideal way to curb opinions you don't like or disagree with.
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
-
jochance wrote:
TL;DR
I am fascinated by people tagging a text as "too long; didn't read", yet they have a lot of opinions about the contents of the text. To me, that sounds like "I just don't want to pay any respect to those opinions; I will pretend that I didn't read it, just to show my low esteem for opinions I disagree with". If you really did not read it, then stop after the "TL;DR". If you did read it, don't display your disrespect for other opinions by pretending you didn't, when it is clear to everyone that you did read it. Showing disrespect or low esteem is allowed, but not by pretending you didn't even care to read the text, when you certainly did. Telling an obvious lie is not the ideal way to curb opinions you don't like or disagree with.
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
-
I'm not sure you do/don't misunderstand my usage. Putting at the top is 'weird' maybe but it's TL;DR for the reader of my post.... the summary. Because I can get wordy. Years of typing make it a low cost endeavor.
Yeah. So you use TL;DR as a general way of showing disrespect, with no inherent meaning. I think I understand that. What would be the difference with your comment with the TL;DL or without it? Do the alternatives show the same respect, or does it reflect your attitude towards the text? You may have had another intention of adding too long; didn't read, an intention than does not show any disrespect, then I got it wrong. Then I am really curious to learn why you added this phrase. The intention, its purpose.
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
-
Yeah. So you use TL;DR as a general way of showing disrespect, with no inherent meaning. I think I understand that. What would be the difference with your comment with the TL;DL or without it? Do the alternatives show the same respect, or does it reflect your attitude towards the text? You may have had another intention of adding too long; didn't read, an intention than does not show any disrespect, then I got it wrong. Then I am really curious to learn why you added this phrase. The intention, its purpose.
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
> then I got it wrong You did. I'm not sure where this idea of disrespect comes in. The point isn't "I didn't read what I am responding to". The point is, "you need only read this to get my meaning by the rest of my drivel". The top (instead of the more typical end) is more a courtesy in that light.
-
> then I got it wrong You did. I'm not sure where this idea of disrespect comes in. The point isn't "I didn't read what I am responding to". The point is, "you need only read this to get my meaning by the rest of my drivel". The top (instead of the more typical end) is more a courtesy in that light.
I still can't see how a public declaration of "I chose not to read his text is anything but disrespect. You argumentation makes it sound as if you have redefined TL;DR to apply to your own text, following the your warning. Well, then you have misunderstood. I doubt that you will succeed in changing its meaning. As long as that change hasn't come about, and TL;DR retains its old meaning, it is a sign of disrespect. It seems like you made a grave mistake, from your misunderstanding of its use. So be careful about using it later, when you do not intend to insult the writer the way you (possibly unintentionally) did in this case.
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
-
I still can't see how a public declaration of "I chose not to read his text is anything but disrespect. You argumentation makes it sound as if you have redefined TL;DR to apply to your own text, following the your warning. Well, then you have misunderstood. I doubt that you will succeed in changing its meaning. As long as that change hasn't come about, and TL;DR retains its old meaning, it is a sign of disrespect. It seems like you made a grave mistake, from your misunderstanding of its use. So be careful about using it later, when you do not intend to insult the writer the way you (possibly unintentionally) did in this case.
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
TL;DR - :thumbsdown: Whatever you say I guess? Gonna just tuck you back in the troll box my head thinks you've been in for years now. Shouldn't you be old enough for a new signature by now? I'm just saying that hard edge atheist stuff... people usually grow out of it and you've been here long enough that you have to be past that point. Kinda makes you look a joke.