Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #10856 > unrolled thread

Design Question

Started byNovice <novice@example..com>
First post2011-12-19 00:13 +0000
Last post2011-12-21 18:06 -0800
Articles 6 on this page of 26 — 10 participants

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.java.programmer

Contents

  Design Question Novice <novice@example..com> - 2011-12-19 00:13 +0000
    Re: Design Question Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-12-18 19:24 -0500
      Re: Design Question ilAn <idonot@wantspam.net> - 2011-12-20 16:47 +0200
        Re: Design Question Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-12-20 10:39 -0500
    Re: Design Question markspace <-@.> - 2011-12-18 19:23 -0800
      Re: Design Question Novice <novice@example..com> - 2011-12-19 13:26 +0000
      Re: Design Question Novice <novice@example..com> - 2011-12-19 13:28 +0000
    Re: Design Question Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-12-19 07:16 -0400
      Re: Design Question Novice <novice@example..com> - 2011-12-19 13:49 +0000
        Re: Design Question Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2011-12-19 22:22 +0000
          Re: Design Question Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-12-19 20:13 -0400
            Re: Design Question Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-12-20 07:37 -0800
              Re: Design Question Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-12-20 10:42 -0500
                Re: Design Question Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-12-20 17:46 -0400
          Re: Design Question Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2011-12-20 20:40 +0000
    Re: Design Question Novice <novice@example..com> - 2011-12-19 13:34 +0000
    Re: Design Question Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2011-12-19 06:25 -0800
    Re: Design Question Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2011-12-19 11:38 -0800
      Re: Design Question Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-12-20 07:42 -0800
        Re: Design Question Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2011-12-20 11:51 -0800
          Re: Design Question soulspirit@gmail.com - 2011-12-20 14:55 -0800
            Re: Design Question Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2011-12-20 15:25 -0800
              Re: Design Question soulspirit@gmail.com - 2011-12-21 01:11 -0800
                Re: Design Question Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2011-12-21 11:08 -0800
                  Re: Design Question soulspirit@gmail.com - 2011-12-21 15:27 -0800
                    Re: Design Question Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2011-12-21 18:06 -0800

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#10916

Fromsoulspirit@gmail.com
Date2011-12-20 14:55 -0800
Message-ID<28248718.48.1324421706183.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbnd7>
In reply to#10910
On Tuesday, December 20, 2011 8:51:00 PM UTC+1, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
[...]
> >>      There are a number of acceptable answers.  If you are just
> >> learning OOP, using it could be a good exercise in using a simple
> >> example so you can be sure you understand.  This does not mean that it
> >> is, in general, a good approach for your problem.
> >
> >And yet it is.
> 
>      Nope.  It is a tool.  There are areas where it is good, and
> others where it is not.

I agree!
I think I would never follow OOP paradigms to program my 10yrs old washing machine's firmware.
But just try to add a little more complexity to the ploblem et voila', OOP comes to.

Reading at your posts Gene, I'm increasingly convinced you'd do better in a computer history museum... even more when you try to defend your anachronistic convincements.

-- 
SoulSpirit

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10919

FromGene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net>
Date2011-12-20 15:25 -0800
Message-ID<t662f7hn4preu62m62361nc27jkdolm7n7@4ax.com>
In reply to#10916
On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 14:55:06 -0800 (PST), soulspirit@gmail.com wrote:

>On Tuesday, December 20, 2011 8:51:00 PM UTC+1, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>[...]
>> >>      There are a number of acceptable answers.  If you are just
>> >> learning OOP, using it could be a good exercise in using a simple
>> >> example so you can be sure you understand.  This does not mean that it
>> >> is, in general, a good approach for your problem.
>> >
>> >And yet it is.
>> 
>>      Nope.  It is a tool.  There are areas where it is good, and
>> others where it is not.
>
>I agree!
>I think I would never follow OOP paradigms to program my 10yrs old washing machine's firmware.
>But just try to add a little more complexity to the ploblem et voila', OOP comes to.

     Well, no.  Not necessarily.

>Reading at your posts Gene, I'm increasingly convinced you'd do better in a computer history 
museum... even more when you try to defend your anachronistic
convincements.

     It is sad that anything different from what we have now is often
considered anachronistic.

     I like wheels.  Wheels are far older than any of the ideas I have
defended.  Do you like wheels?

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10927

Fromsoulspirit@gmail.com
Date2011-12-21 01:11 -0800
Message-ID<26896587.194.1324458671926.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbbfq24>
In reply to#10919
On Wednesday, December 21, 2011 12:25:38 AM UTC+1, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
[...]
>      I like wheels.  Wheels are far older than any of the ideas I have
> defended.  Do you like wheels?

I do, because there aren't good alternatives to them, nor interesting and affordable evolutions of the concept.

My boss says he can't understand many of the architectural problems we deal with nowadays; he says everything was simpler, clearer, bug free and more linear with COBOL. Should I evaluate COBOL for my next WEB-based project?

-- 
SoulSpirit

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10933

FromGene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net>
Date2011-12-21 11:08 -0800
Message-ID<afb4f7hiqfq4nq8jsblsf5c2g2v1nf1qde@4ax.com>
In reply to#10927
On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 01:11:11 -0800 (PST), soulspirit@gmail.com wrote:

>On Wednesday, December 21, 2011 12:25:38 AM UTC+1, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>[...]
>>      I like wheels.  Wheels are far older than any of the ideas I have
>> defended.  Do you like wheels?
>
>I do, because there aren't good alternatives to them, nor interesting and affordable evolutions of the concept.

     The wheel has evolved considerably.

>My boss says he can't understand many of the architectural problems we deal with
 nowadays; he says everything was simpler, clearer, bug free and more
linear with COBOL. Should I evaluate COBOL for my next WEB-based
project?

     I do not believe him.  Do you?

     If you have something workable now, why change?  This is much the
same as why should a working system written in COBOL be rewritten in
language-flavour-of-the-short-time-period.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10939

Fromsoulspirit@gmail.com
Date2011-12-21 15:27 -0800
Message-ID<28361679.375.1324510022059.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqgn9>
In reply to#10933
On Wednesday, December 21, 2011 8:08:07 PM UTC+1, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 01:11:11 -0800 (PST), souls...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> >On Wednesday, December 21, 2011 12:25:38 AM UTC+1, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
[...]
> > Should I evaluate COBOL for my next WEB-based project?
> 
>      I do not believe him.  Do you?
> 
>      If you have something workable now, why change?  This is much the
> same as why should a working system written in COBOL be rewritten in
> language-flavour-of-the-short-time-period.

Because things evolve.
How would you add web services capabilities to a COBOL program? How would you publish an AS/400 application to the internet?
Sometimes reworking something from scratch costs less than evolving an obsolete system.

But we were talking about new projects, you diverted from the subject.

> > Should I evaluate COBOL for my next WEB-based project?

I miss your answer here.

-- 
SoulSpirit

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10942

FromGene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net>
Date2011-12-21 18:06 -0800
Message-ID<0v35f792ienvrqtt9nd2pn65o1iiuqte5q@4ax.com>
In reply to#10939
On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 15:27:02 -0800 (PST), soulspirit@gmail.com wrote:

>On Wednesday, December 21, 2011 8:08:07 PM UTC+1, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 01:11:11 -0800 (PST), souls...@gmail.com wrote:
>> 
>> >On Wednesday, December 21, 2011 12:25:38 AM UTC+1, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>[...]
>> > Should I evaluate COBOL for my next WEB-based project?
>> 
>>      I do not believe him.  Do you?
>> 
>>      If you have something workable now, why change?  This is much the
>> same as why should a working system written in COBOL be rewritten in
>> language-flavour-of-the-short-time-period.
>
>Because things evolve.

     Do you need the new whatever?  You might not.  It might possibly
be of interest.  It might be vital.  It depends.

>How would you add web services capabilities to a COBOL program? How would you publish an AS/400 application to the internet?
>Sometimes reworking something from scratch costs less than evolving an obsolete system.

     Sure, and sometimes (the other sometimes), it is the other way
around.

>But we were talking about new projects, you diverted from the subject.
>
>> > Should I evaluate COBOL for my next WEB-based project?
>
>I miss your answer here.

     I did not divert from it at all.  Why would one change?  Are
there deficiencies in what you have now?  Are there advantages which
could be gained by changing?  How do these weigh out?  Then, decide
accordingly.

     Please note that I do not say that one should not use the new
stuff.  What I say is that one does not necessarily need it.  Use your
judgement to determine which is the case for you.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.java.programmer

csiph-web