I came across an article titled 'OOP Is Much Better in Theory Than in Practice' by Richard Mansfield- http://www.devx.com/opinion/Article/26776 .
Which, as expected attempts to tarnish OOPS. The author seemed to be overenthusiastic to bend facts. It is widely known that Object Oriented Programming was a result of programmer's search for techniques for cost and complexity reduction as well as code reusability. During his attack on oops, Mr.Mansfield doesn't care about the pitfalls of structured Programming.
According to him, OOPS is just a theoretical exercise and lacks practical significance. He himself agrees that it may be resulting from the improper understanding of the technology-oops.
He complains about unnecessary layers!
This misunderstanding usually happens when one doesn't know OOPS well. Its quite natural because OOPS only makes one productive; It doesn't makes the impossible possible. Everything you achieve (end results, not classes or objects) using an Object Oriented Programming language is possible by a low level structured or even machine language...The OOP Code is ultimately a machine language code on execution. But as one knows, it is really tough to program in Machine Language. Are we really in need of assembly language codes everywhere?
After all, everything is a trade off between Efficiency and Maintainability. It is your choice. Most of the current C++,C# or Java Codes do use oops. There is no point in doubting the potential of oops.
Mansfield find OOPS useful while programming UI Widgets. This happens usually because of one's inability for Componentization and visualisation of domain classes as they are intangible. While it is easier to deal with tangible UI Widgets.
I am one of those who directly benefited from OOPS, It reduced the complexity, made our code much maintainable. and I am very confident of its practical significance.It gave me the confidence to simulate almost anything around us.
Which, as expected attempts to tarnish OOPS. The author seemed to be overenthusiastic to bend facts. It is widely known that Object Oriented Programming was a result of programmer's search for techniques for cost and complexity reduction as well as code reusability. During his attack on oops, Mr.Mansfield doesn't care about the pitfalls of structured Programming.
According to him, OOPS is just a theoretical exercise and lacks practical significance. He himself agrees that it may be resulting from the improper understanding of the technology-oops.
He complains about unnecessary layers!
This misunderstanding usually happens when one doesn't know OOPS well. Its quite natural because OOPS only makes one productive; It doesn't makes the impossible possible. Everything you achieve (end results, not classes or objects) using an Object Oriented Programming language is possible by a low level structured or even machine language...The OOP Code is ultimately a machine language code on execution. But as one knows, it is really tough to program in Machine Language. Are we really in need of assembly language codes everywhere?
After all, everything is a trade off between Efficiency and Maintainability. It is your choice. Most of the current C++,C# or Java Codes do use oops. There is no point in doubting the potential of oops.
Mansfield find OOPS useful while programming UI Widgets. This happens usually because of one's inability for Componentization and visualisation of domain classes as they are intangible. While it is easier to deal with tangible UI Widgets.
I am one of those who directly benefited from OOPS, It reduced the complexity, made our code much maintainable. and I am very confident of its practical significance.It gave me the confidence to simulate almost anything around us.
I should have taken care while critisizing Mr.Mansfield as I see his three decades of industry experience. But I believe irrespective of who speaks, fact is much more important. I don't want somebody propagating ideas that are regressive. Richard Mansfield's arguments are outdated, I believe. More or less a screed! His arguments doesn't seems to be well supported.
Its is just a matter of accepting something 'new'. OOPS is revolutionary!
No comments:
Post a Comment