2 ms·

What I prioritize is the ability to quickly and easily answer the question "Where is the bogus value coming from?". When the inputs building up the value are sp

by ori_b 14y ago

What I prioritize is the ability to quickly and easily answer the question "Where is the bogus value coming from?". When the inputs building up the value are spread all over the place, it's annoying to trace.

gnaritas 14y ago
When you know how the parts work, you don't have to trace it. 99% of the time, I see a bug, I know what's broke, because I understand the program at a high level and know X just can't happen anywhere but Y. Object oriented programs are not a sequence of data transforms, if you insist on thinking of them that way then of course you're going to dislike OO. I've never had any of the problems you're relating to me, because I embraced a change in how I think when I changed to OO. If you insist on thinking functionally or procedurally, well, then OO won't agree with you because you won't let it. You want to see everything in one place so you can see the big picture all at once; if that works well for you great. But there's another way that we like, rather than seeing everything crammed into one spot in a complex way, we break it down into many small parts that are each individually stupidly simple. Each part assigned a responsibility in completing the overall task, and each part pluggable with any part having the same interface. The big picture is in the message names between the parts and the part names themselves, and the actual code implementing those messages is basically irrelevant. We find this simpler precisely because we can ignore everything but the one part we're working on, which is stupidly simple. And we can easily extend the system buy subclassing any part to change the behaviour of the program without touching the existing parts, but simply by adding new ones. Quite simply, we don't want everything in one place, it's inflexible, brittle, not pluggable, and not simple in the way we define simple.
- ori_b 14y ago
  You're talking about rows versus columns in the expression problem. You prefer making it easy to add columns, I prefer making it easy to add rows.
  - gnaritas 14y ago
    If that's what you need to tell yourself. You seem like the typical OO hater, uninterested in grokking it, just interested in justifying your dislike with a bunch of hand waving about how you think it's complicated without presenting an alternative that has the same flexibility. As you've not added anything interesting to the conversation, I don't care to continue it; good day.
    - ori_b 14y ago
      I think I've been trolled.

by ori_b 14y ago

gnaritas 14y ago

When you know how the parts work, you don't have to trace it. 99% of the time, I see a bug, I know what's broke, because I understand the program at a high level and know X just can't happen anywhere but Y. Object oriented programs are not a sequence of data transforms, if you insist on thinking of them that way then of course you're going to dislike OO. I've never had any of the problems you're relating to me, because I embraced a change in how I think when I changed to OO. If you insist on thinking functionally or procedurally, well, then OO won't agree with you because you won't let it. You want to see everything in one place so you can see the big picture all at once; if that works well for you great. But there's another way that we like, rather than seeing everything crammed into one spot in a complex way, we break it down into many small parts that are each individually stupidly simple. Each part assigned a responsibility in completing the overall task, and each part pluggable with any part having the same interface. The big picture is in the message names between the parts and the part names themselves, and the actual code implementing those messages is basically irrelevant. We find this simpler precisely because we can ignore everything but the one part we're working on, which is stupidly simple. And we can easily extend the system buy subclassing any part to change the behaviour of the program without touching the existing parts, but simply by adding new ones. Quite simply, we don't want everything in one place, it's inflexible, brittle, not pluggable, and not simple in the way we define simple.

ori_b 14y ago
You're talking about rows versus columns in the expression problem. You prefer making it easy to add columns, I prefer making it easy to add rows.
- gnaritas 14y ago
  If that's what you need to tell yourself. You seem like the typical OO hater, uninterested in grokking it, just interested in justifying your dislike with a bunch of hand waving about how you think it's complicated without presenting an alternative that has the same flexibility. As you've not added anything interesting to the conversation, I don't care to continue it; good day.
  - ori_b 14y ago
    I think I've been trolled.