3 ms·
Yeah, I feel the same. I think that in the surface the idea was interesting, but the final implementation, with the "weaving" involving code transformation, and
by whstl 3y ago
Yeah, I feel the same. I think that in the surface the idea was interesting, but the final implementation, with the "weaving" involving code transformation, and also the fact that there was some "inversion" of control flow (where the COMEFROM comparison comes from) weren't really good. All that flexibility was probably a good selling point, but it just wasn't necessary IMO.
I think in the end things like Python decorators follow similar ideas without the problems associated. No magic, just functions.
I do like that AOP helped "Cross Cutting Concern" become a common thing in development vocabulary, though.
- marcosdumay 3y ago> but it just wasn't necessary IMO AOP makes Java style logging incredibly convenient. That was not only its main selling point, but also it's one single benefit that people managed to identify during the few years it was hyped. IMO, Java style logging is bad by itself. But surely, AOP does make Java style logging much more convenient.