Which dogma are you complaining about? The dogma that OOP will save us all is strong, but that doesn't make it right. Arguing against such dogma requires enough conviction to rouse the believers from their complacency. When the annual academic conference on OOP is having a debate about whether objects have failed, I think it's time to sit down and listen. That was six years ago.
As for the untraceable reasoning, all of the reasoning in this post is contextual. Follow the links. The OOPSLA debate discusses at great length why OOP has failed. The PDXFunc meeting minutes has a few more points for the record. The FQA enumerates in profound depth why C++ is an abomination, relevant because C++ is often held up as a paragon OO language. Jamie Zawinski's post about why Java sucks, while out of date in a few areas, is still relevant even in today's age. The dumbfounding stupidity of Java's memory model is also relevant since Java is often held up as a paragon of OO. Turtles All The Way Down Please discusses the failure in Ruby's attempt to save people from C/C++'s assignment story. Adding Tuples To Java highlights more about why Java's take on implementing objects is insufficient to save the world. A Tail-Recursive Machine With Stack Inspection demonstrates that Java's superstition is wrong about not being able to inline heavily or do TCO for fear of the security model. The fragile base class problem is apparently well known according to the link you gave, and the horror that is the Cloneable interface is near and dear to every Java programmer. Yegge's post about when inheritance (so-called "polymorphism" by OO folks) fails also underscores this point.
The writing is on the wall for anyone who cares to look. I'm not here to spoon feed people the last decade in programming, but they're free to open their eyes. Frankly, if you're getting your education from a drunken blog rant rather than personal experience, a book, or a university, then your education is as suspect as is my ability to form sentences after one g&t too many. And if you can't handle some anthropology and critical theory, then this blog really isn't the place for ye.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
chiming
Re: This is what I learnt from this post
Date: 2008-09-03 06:02 am (UTC)From:As for the untraceable reasoning, all of the reasoning in this post is contextual. Follow the links. The OOPSLA debate discusses at great length why OOP has failed. The PDXFunc meeting minutes has a few more points for the record. The FQA enumerates in profound depth why C++ is an abomination, relevant because C++ is often held up as a paragon OO language. Jamie Zawinski's post about why Java sucks, while out of date in a few areas, is still relevant even in today's age. The dumbfounding stupidity of Java's memory model is also relevant since Java is often held up as a paragon of OO. Turtles All The Way Down Please discusses the failure in Ruby's attempt to save people from C/C++'s assignment story. Adding Tuples To Java highlights more about why Java's take on implementing objects is insufficient to save the world. A Tail-Recursive Machine With Stack Inspection demonstrates that Java's superstition is wrong about not being able to inline heavily or do TCO for fear of the security model. The fragile base class problem is apparently well known according to the link you gave, and the horror that is the Cloneable interface is near and dear to every Java programmer. Yegge's post about when inheritance (so-called "polymorphism" by OO folks) fails also underscores this point.
The writing is on the wall for anyone who cares to look. I'm not here to spoon feed people the last decade in programming, but they're free to open their eyes. Frankly, if you're getting your education from a drunken blog rant rather than personal experience, a book, or a university, then your education is as suspect as is my ability to form sentences after one g&t too many. And if you can't handle some anthropology and critical theory, then this blog really isn't the place for ye.