3 ms·
What prompted this wandering, incoherent mumble was wondering if "what we can teach new programmers" is somehow related to "what is readable by unskilled progra
by raganwald 16y ago
What prompted this wandering, incoherent mumble was wondering if "what we can teach new programmers" is somehow related to "what is readable by unskilled programmers new to our programs." If OO gets in the way of new programmers, I was wondering if it would get in the way of the mythical maintenance programmers trying to figure out what our programs do and how to modify them.
I don't really have a full conclusion, but if we grant that it is a useless metaphor, and just a tool for organizing programs, I wonder if it ought to be relegated to a corner of most languages rather than being put front and center.
- chromatic 16y agoI was wondering if it would get in the way of the mythical maintenance programmers trying to figure out what our programs do and how to modify them. This seems to me to be the point at which your idea goes strange. Why assume that maintenance programmers are interchangeable monkey-cogs with minimal understanding of software development and design? Perhaps we'd have better software if we treated maintenance and ongoing development as tasks requiring just as much, if not more, talent and knowledge and skill and practice as green field development. (I understand that soi disant architects might disagree, but I ignore architects who don't code.)