You talk of modernism and post modernism and completely ignore the fact that these are aesthetic trends. While programmers and programs and even the language syntax may have overriding aesthetic aspects, the fact that language features per se (not the syntactic sugar) are at the end of the day very engineering driven, and what drives language adoption and success at the end of the day are economic aspects - how these languages influence the economics of the situation. So the arguments about aesthetic movements are extremely suspect imho for something that has a very high component of engineering and economics dimension to it.
You take a set of issues (in most cases real, in some cases imaginary) with OO languages and goes to town painting the entire OO movement black. There is no semblance of balance of what is good about them, there is absolutely no credit given to the the fact while theoretical guys were busy in ivory towers trying to work out something idea, these were out on the field solving many problems, and there's simply no sufficient evidence of what else could've helped solve the problems better. If not C++ / Java / Python / Ruby what else ? and more importantly how will it help me meet the real software delivery needs ? This question is unanswered. The scenario is that C++ and Java have risen to no. 1 and 2 positions today because they in many ways solved the needs of the masses and businesses superior to other options and that is not even remotely given its due. The arguments are elitist attempting to take on a wave called collective wisdom of the market - a wave they are unlikely to be able to survive however articulately they are put, for the simple reason that more often than not collective wisdom in the long term is superior to individual opinions.
Finally one can look back at anything list out the issues alone and attempt to call it a failure. But while this style of argument can be put forward it can neither be sold simply because no one will buy them. For that you need to contrast the issues with the successes, the limitations with the strengths, and then attempt to work out a reasoned value judgement. There is no talk of successes and no reasoned trade offs between the successes and failures. Therein lies the dogma.
Re: This is what I learnt from this post
You talk of modernism and post modernism and completely ignore the fact that these are aesthetic trends. While programmers and programs and even the language syntax may have overriding aesthetic aspects, the fact that language features per se (not the syntactic sugar) are at the end of the day very engineering driven, and what drives language adoption and success at the end of the day are economic aspects - how these languages influence the economics of the situation. So the arguments about aesthetic movements are extremely suspect imho for something that has a very high component of engineering and economics dimension to it.
You take a set of issues (in most cases real, in some cases imaginary) with OO languages and goes to town painting the entire OO movement black. There is no semblance of balance of what is good about them, there is absolutely no credit given to the the fact while theoretical guys were busy in ivory towers trying to work out something idea, these were out on the field solving many problems, and there's simply no sufficient evidence of what else could've helped solve the problems better. If not C++ / Java / Python / Ruby what else ? and more importantly how will it help me meet the real software delivery needs ? This question is unanswered. The scenario is that C++ and Java have risen to no. 1 and 2 positions today because they in many ways solved the needs of the masses and businesses superior to other options and that is not even remotely given its due. The arguments are elitist attempting to take on a wave called collective wisdom of the market - a wave they are unlikely to be able to survive however articulately they are put, for the simple reason that more often than not collective wisdom in the long term is superior to individual opinions.
Finally one can look back at anything list out the issues alone and attempt to call it a failure. But while this style of argument can be put forward it can neither be sold simply because no one will buy them. For that you need to contrast the issues with the successes, the limitations with the strengths, and then attempt to work out a reasoned value judgement. There is no talk of successes and no reasoned trade offs between the successes and failures. Therein lies the dogma.