4 ms·
I think you're reading wayyyy to far into this. I wasn't making a this-versus-that argument. I was having a rant about X being totally unfit for the purpose f
by gdp 17y ago
I think you're reading wayyyy to far into this. I wasn't making a this-versus-that argument. I was having a rant about X being totally unfit for the purpose for which it is sold (in this case, X is 'OOP' and its purpose is 'modeling systems in an intuitive, natural way that corresponds to the real world'). I even included the word "rant" in the first few sentences just so that people who don't like reading rants could close the window at that point.
So basically, I respect that you disagree, but complaining that something that was clearly labeled as a rant didn't present objective evidence is asking a little too much.
- kragen 17y agoThe context in which modeling systems in a way that corresponds to the real world makes sense is when you're writing a simulation of the real world. The Sims, say, or Knuth's elevator example. Historically this is where OO came from. It was only later (with Smalltalk, for which the term "OO" was invented) that it was used for more general programming. My complaint wasn't that it was a rant. It was that it was a vacuous, boring rant.