4 ms·
What's the clinical terminology for this? Projective collective delusional narcissism? I'm a Unix programmer, and I disavow this rant. Reading this makes me
by dkarl 17y ago
What's the clinical terminology for this? Projective collective delusional narcissism? I'm a Unix programmer, and I disavow this rant. Reading this makes me ashamed of every time I've thought and spoken this way. (At least I can thank the author for providing that clarity.) Unix programmers rarely tackle the kinds of problems that OO approaches are best and most necessary for. When they do, they usually aren't acting as "Unix programmers" or "systems programmers." I occasionally write performance-critical code that talks directly to hardware, and I have written embedded code that runs on that hardware as well. Of course I wrote lean code without layers of goopy abstraction. But I don't walk around with my chest puffed out just because I've written low-level non-OO code, because I've also written GUI applications using Eclipse RCP, which is plugin-based Java abstraction-on-steroids that makes architecture astronauts giddy. I would use Eclipse RCP again in a heartbeat if I needed to produce another heavyweight, complex GUI application. Looking down on somebody because the best way to do their job is not the best way to do your job is stupid.
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- hvs 17y agoI would argue that he does point out that OO is good for certain types of applications, specifically GUI applications. I do agree with you that the application paradigm is often overly touted as the epitome of good design, but that doesn't change the fact that the original design ideas behind Unix were good ones. On the other hand, I would also argue that modern Unix software (at least in the Linux world) rarely follows that paradigm. Most desktop applications in Linux follow precisely the same methodology (and inherit its flaws) as Windows applications. They are often big, bloated, and slow.