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

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #37144 > unrolled thread

Object-Oriented Programming (OOP)

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth

Contents

  Object-Oriented Programming (OOP) Steve Graham <solitary.wanderer52@gmail.com> - 2015-03-10 18:17 -0700
    Re: Object-Oriented Programming (OOP) Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-03-11 02:21 +0100
      Re: Object-Oriented Programming (OOP) Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2015-03-11 06:25 -0500
        Re: Object-Oriented Programming (OOP) Mel <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-03-11 14:49 +0100
    Re: Object-Oriented Programming (OOP) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-03-10 15:43 -1000
      Re: Object-Oriented Programming (OOP) albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2015-03-11 10:05 +0000
        Re: Object-Oriented Programming (OOP) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-03-11 13:48 -1000
      Re: Object-Oriented Programming (OOP) Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2015-03-12 19:01 +0100
        Re: Object-Oriented Programming (OOP) Pete Brown <brown.peter@nospicedham.com> - 2015-03-12 18:09 +0000
          Re: Object-Oriented Programming (OOP) Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2015-03-12 23:46 +0100
            Re: Object-Oriented Programming (OOP) Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2015-03-13 15:50 -0400
              Re: Object-Oriented Programming (OOP) Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-03-13 14:24 -0700
                Re: Object-Oriented Programming (OOP) "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-03-14 18:17 +0000
                Re: Object-Oriented Programming (OOP) Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2015-03-16 06:30 -0400
    Re: Object-Oriented Programming (OOP) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-03-11 03:16 +0100
    Re: Object-Oriented Programming (OOP) Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2015-03-11 10:18 -0400
      Re: Object-Oriented Programming (OOP) Steve Graham <solitary.wanderer52@gmail.com> - 2015-03-11 09:01 -0700
        Re: Object-Oriented Programming (OOP) Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2015-03-11 13:16 -0400
    Re: Object-Oriented Programming (OOP) november.nihal@gmail.com - 2015-03-11 08:03 -0700
    Re: Object-Oriented Programming (OOP) Paul E Bennett <Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk> - 2015-03-12 00:57 +0000
      Re: Object-Oriented Programming (OOP) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-03-11 18:31 -1000
        Re: Object-Oriented Programming (OOP) Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-03-12 01:51 -0700
    Re: Object-Oriented Programming (OOP) franck.bensusan@gmail.com - 2015-03-12 07:04 -0700
      Re: Object-Oriented Programming (OOP) "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-03-16 18:10 +0000
        Re: Object-Oriented Programming (OOP) franck.bensusan@gmail.com - 2015-03-16 11:39 -0700
          Re: Object-Oriented Programming (OOP) Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2015-03-16 17:30 -0400
            Re: Object-Oriented Programming (OOP) franck.bensusan@gmail.com - 2015-03-16 15:51 -0700
          Re: Object-Oriented Programming (OOP) "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-03-16 22:35 +0000
            Re: Object-Oriented Programming (OOP) franck.bensusan@gmail.com - 2015-03-16 15:54 -0700
    Re: Object-Oriented Programming (OOP) Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2015-03-13 11:45 -0400
      Re: Object-Oriented Programming (OOP) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-03-14 13:52 -0700
        Re: Object-Oriented Programming (OOP) Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2015-03-15 07:01 -0400
          Re: Object-Oriented Programming (OOP) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-03-15 18:16 -0700
            Re: Object-Oriented Programming (OOP) Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2015-03-16 05:50 -0400
              Re: Object-Oriented Programming (OOP) Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2015-03-16 08:54 -0400
                Re: Object-Oriented Programming (OOP) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-03-16 10:23 -0700
            Re: Object-Oriented Programming (OOP) november.nihal@gmail.com - 2015-03-16 09:02 -0700
              Re: Object-Oriented Programming (OOP) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-03-16 10:35 -0700
                Re: Object-Oriented Programming (OOP) Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-03-16 19:57 +0100

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#37144 — Object-Oriented Programming (OOP)

Over the years, I've seen posts here in c.l.f. denying the need for OOP.  And personally I have rarely used it in almost 35 years of programming.

Interesting to hear criticism of the concept from leaders in the CS field:

http://www.quora.com/Was-object-oriented-programming-a-failure/answer/Michael-O-Church?share=1

Steve 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#37145

On Tue, 10 Mar 2015 18:17:02 -0700 (PDT)
Steve Graham <solitary.wanderer52@gmail.com> wrote:

> Over the years, I've seen posts here in c.l.f. denying the need for
> OOP.  And personally I have rarely used it in almost 35 years of
> programming.
> 
> Interesting to hear criticism of the concept from leaders in the CS
> field:
> 
> http://www.quora.com/Was-object-oriented-programming-a-failure/answer/Michael-O-Church?share=1
> 
> Steve 

Site requires email address...

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

#37160

Melzzzzz wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Mar 2015 18:17:02 -0700 (PDT)
> Steve Graham <solitary.wanderer52@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Over the years, I've seen posts here in c.l.f. denying the need for
>> OOP.  And personally I have rarely used it in almost 35 years of
>> programming.
>>
>> Interesting to hear criticism of the concept from leaders in the CS
>> field:
>>
>> http://www.quora.com/Was-object-oriented-programming-a-failure/answer/Michael-O-Church?share=1
>>
>> Steve
>
> Site requires email address...
>

*NOT* !
I had no problem _reading_ page without entering anything.

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

#37165

On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 06:25:30 -0500, Richard Owlett 
<rowlett@cloud85.net> wrote:
> Melzzzzz wrote:
> > On Tue, 10 Mar 2015 18:17:02 -0700 (PDT)
> > Steve Graham <solitary.wanderer52@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Over the years, I've seen posts here in c.l.f. denying the need 
for
> >> OOP.  And personally I have rarely used it in almost 35 years of
> >> programming.
> >>
> >> Interesting to hear criticism of the concept from leaders in the 
CS
> >> field:
> >>
> >> 
http://www.quora.com/Was-object-oriented-programming-a-failure/answer/M
ichael-O-Church?share=1
> >>
> >> Steve
> >
> > Site requires email address...
> >


> *NOT* !
> I had no problem _reading_ page without entering anything.

To me it requires confirming my email address before anything else...

-- 
Press any key to continue or any other to quit 

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

#37147

On 3/10/15 3:17 PM, Steve Graham wrote:
> Over the years, I've seen posts here in c.l.f. denying the need for OOP.  And personally I have rarely used it in almost 35 years of programming.
>
> Interesting to hear criticism of the concept from leaders in the CS field:
>
> http://www.quora.com/Was-object-oriented-programming-a-failure/answer/Michael-O-Church?share=1
>
> Steve
>

I don't think there's been a uniform denial of the usefulness of OOP in 
the Forth community. In fact, Chuck Moore developed a system 
incorporating all the essential features of OOP in the 1970's, called 
imageForth, for a sequence of image processing applications. In the late 
80's FORTH, Inc. used it in an extensive database system and an 
industrial controls product. Most modern Forths have extensions 
including OOP features, such as SWOOP in SwiftForth.

What there *is* pushback on is the notion that OOP is generally 
applicable to *all* programming challenges, and procedural programming 
is somehow old-fashioned. There are certain applications and situations 
that lend themselves to OOP, and others for which imposing an OOP 
solution increases complexity and overhead rather than reducing it. A 
lot of embedded control applications, for example, are inherently 
procedural.

Cheers,
Elizabeth

-- 
==================================================
Elizabeth D. Rather   (US & Canada)   800-55-FORTH
FORTH Inc.                         +1 310.999.6784
5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90045
http://www.forth.com

"Forth-based products and Services for real-time
applications since 1973."
==================================================

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

#37159

In article <uuGdnbuYCcVfAGLJnZ2dnUU7-SOdnZ2d@supernews.com>,
Elizabeth D. Rather <erather@forth.com> wrote:
>On 3/10/15 3:17 PM, Steve Graham wrote:
>> Over the years, I've seen posts here in c.l.f. denying the need for OOP.  And personally
>I have rarely used it in almost 35 years of programming.
>>
>> Interesting to hear criticism of the concept from leaders in the CS field:
>>
>> http://www.quora.com/Was-object-oriented-programming-a-failure/answer/Michael-O-Church?share=1
>>
>> Steve
>>
>
>I don't think there's been a uniform denial of the usefulness of OOP in
>the Forth community. In fact, Chuck Moore developed a system
>incorporating all the essential features of OOP in the 1970's, called
>imageForth, for a sequence of image processing applications. In the late
>80's FORTH, Inc. used it in an extensive database system and an
>industrial controls product. Most modern Forths have extensions
>including OOP features, such as SWOOP in SwiftForth.
>
>What there *is* pushback on is the notion that OOP is generally
>applicable to *all* programming challenges, and procedural programming
>is somehow old-fashioned. There are certain applications and situations
>that lend themselves to OOP, and others for which imposing an OOP
>solution increases complexity and overhead rather than reducing it. A
>lot of embedded control applications, for example, are inherently
>procedural.

It is interesting that you say that. One of the most complex control
applications I wrote (manx2) owns much of its transparency and
understandability to a moderate application of OO. It plays several
instruments, metallophones and an organ over a parallel port, with
independant serial protocols. (And the internal speaker at the same
time). Music is by definition real time. You hear any
imperfections. A musical score is an object too.

What is probably outside of oo is the coupling of musical parts with
different instruments. That is definitely not inheritance, but
composition it is neither. So it probably boils down to being a good
designer and not being dogmatic about any technique you use.

>
>Cheers,
>Elizabeth

Groetjes Albert
-- 
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst

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

#37181

On 3/11/15 12:05 AM, Albert van der Horst wrote:
> In article <uuGdnbuYCcVfAGLJnZ2dnUU7-SOdnZ2d@supernews.com>,
> Elizabeth D. Rather <erather@forth.com> wrote:
>> On 3/10/15 3:17 PM, Steve Graham wrote:
>>> Over the years, I've seen posts here in c.l.f. denying the need for OOP.  And personally
>> I have rarely used it in almost 35 years of programming.
>>>
>>> Interesting to hear criticism of the concept from leaders in the CS field:
>>>
>>> http://www.quora.com/Was-object-oriented-programming-a-failure/answer/Michael-O-Church?share=1
>>>
>>> Steve
>>>
>>
>> I don't think there's been a uniform denial of the usefulness of OOP in
>> the Forth community. In fact, Chuck Moore developed a system
>> incorporating all the essential features of OOP in the 1970's, called
>> imageForth, for a sequence of image processing applications. In the late
>> 80's FORTH, Inc. used it in an extensive database system and an
>> industrial controls product. Most modern Forths have extensions
>> including OOP features, such as SWOOP in SwiftForth.
>>
>> What there *is* pushback on is the notion that OOP is generally
>> applicable to *all* programming challenges, and procedural programming
>> is somehow old-fashioned. There are certain applications and situations
>> that lend themselves to OOP, and others for which imposing an OOP
>> solution increases complexity and overhead rather than reducing it. A
>> lot of embedded control applications, for example, are inherently
>> procedural.
>
> It is interesting that you say that. One of the most complex control
> applications I wrote (manx2) owns much of its transparency and
> understandability to a moderate application of OO. It plays several
> instruments, metallophones and an organ over a parallel port, with
> independant serial protocols. (And the internal speaker at the same
> time). Music is by definition real time. You hear any
> imperfections. A musical score is an object too.

Well, I said "a lot of" after all. Indeed, our Express industrial 
controls system was heavily object-oriented.

> What is probably outside of oo is the coupling of musical parts with
> different instruments. That is definitely not inheritance, but
> composition it is neither. So it probably boils down to being a good
> designer and not being dogmatic about any technique you use.

Agreed. I think the major tip-off that OO is indicated is that you have 
a lot of things that are structurally similar but different in detail. 
In Chuck's original imageForth, for example, the basic object was an 
"Image" and had properties such as overall dimensions, element size, and 
potentially a current window. The display was an "image" as was its 
representation on disk, printer, etc. In the industrial controls system 
you could have conveyors, lifts, gates, etc., each of which had various 
properties but shared messages and methods.

Cheers,
Elizabeth

-- 
==================================================
Elizabeth D. Rather   (US & Canada)   800-55-FORTH
FORTH Inc.                         +1 310.999.6784
5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90045
http://www.forth.com

"Forth-based products and Services for real-time
applications since 1973."
==================================================

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

#37203

Elizabeth D. Rather wrote:
> What there *is* pushback on is the notion that OOP is generally
> applicable to *all* programming challenges, and procedural programming
> is somehow old-fashioned. There are certain applications and situations
> that lend themselves to OOP, and others for which imposing an OOP
> solution increases complexity and overhead rather than reducing it. A
> lot of embedded control applications, for example, are inherently
> procedural.
I couldn't agree more. OO is the greatest hoax ever to enter the programming
world. Most of their claims (if not all) have proven to be wrong - that is:
applicable to each and every programming situation. It's not a different
paradigm, it's just another way to model and use your datastructures.

There is also table-oriented programming (a technique I'm particularly fond
of, since it saves loads of branches). Still, I wouldn't want to tackle
every problem table-oriented.

In recent years we're found they're lots of problems around the use of OO,
like "lasagna programming", which is hardly better than "spaghetti"
programming. There are also lots of philosophical problems around OO -
which some tend to dismiss as "academical chatter", but which I find rather
intriguing and convincing.

And last, I find any implementation of OO from a compiler design standpoint
VERY unelegant. Sure, I also support an OO extention to my own compiler
(called FOOS) but I hardly ever use it. I rarely find a problem that I can
do more easily and elegantly in OO than e.g. table oriented.

Sure, if you put a gun to my head I can squeeze out some objects, but then
again: is it easier, more maintainable, smaller, faster or in another way
more efficient? Nah...

Hans Bezemer

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

#37204

On 2015-03-12, Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> wrote:
> In recent years we're found they're lots of problems around the use of OO,
> like "lasagna programming"

This is the first time I've seen that term. Do you mean layers and layers
and more layers?

Pete

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

#37211

Pete Brown wrote:
> This is the first time I've seen that term. Do you mean layers and layers
> and more layers?
Yes, classes with subclasses with subclasses with subclasses etc. Bonus
points for many overridden virtual methods. Superbonuspoints if you
override methods in individual objects.

But the term is pretty well known. Google it.

Hans Bezemer

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

#37236

On 3/12/15 6:46 PM, Hans Bezemer wrote:
> Pete Brown wrote:
>> This is the first time I've seen that term. Do you mean layers and layers
>> and more layers?

> Yes, classes with subclasses with subclasses with subclasses etc.

I've gone much deeper than that but only for the purpose of torture 
testing the inheritance mechanisms.  For real code shallow inheritance 
is the better plan.  But deeper inheritance is fine if just a few 
methods need changing/adding (programming by difference).  You can shoot 
yourself in the foot with any coding technique.

> Bonus points for many overridden virtual methods.

Sure, a good thing can be over done.  But it's still a powerful technique.

> Superbonuspoints if youoverride methods in individual objects.

That strikes me as unusual.  Maybe someone has a use for it, I never have.

-Doug

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

#37241

Different variants of machine instructions in an assember:

E.g

MOV Rn,Rn
MOV Rn,@address
MOV @address, Rn
etc

But plenty of other ways to skin the poor cat!

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

#37251

on 13/03/2015 21:24:46, Mark Wills wrote:
> Different variants of machine instructions in an assember:
> 
> E.g
> 
> MOV Rn,Rn
> MOV Rn,@address
> MOV @address, Rn
> etc
> 
> But plenty of other ways to skin the poor cat!
> 

What are you replying to here? It's impossible to tell since all the
context has been removed.

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

#37285

On 3/13/15 5:24 PM, Mark Wills wrote:
> Different variants of machine instructions in an assember:
>
> E.g
>
> MOV Rn,Rn
> MOV Rn,@address
> MOV @address, Rn
> etc
>
> But plenty of other ways to skin the poor cat!

Yes, that's a good example of hitting the foot with the bullet even with 
the simplest techniques.

-Doug

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

#37151

Steve Graham wrote:

> Over the years, I've seen posts here in c.l.f. denying the need for OOP. 
> And personally I have rarely used it in almost 35 years of programming.
> 
> Interesting to hear criticism of the concept from leaders in the CS field:
> 
> http://www.quora.com/Was-object-oriented-programming-a-failure/answer/Michael-O-Church?share=1

OOP certainly is a failure if you measure the results of OOP ("onion-
programmed bloatware") with the promise ("solves all programming problems, 
world hunger and achieves global peace" ;-).

A lot of people have a "seven men and the elephant"-view of the world, e.g. 
in programming.  OOP is not all and everything, it is just useful for 
certain problems.  You apparently work in a domain where it isn't very 
useful.

I have programs where I use a lot of OOP and other programs where I use 
little. Some are in between, they have parts with OOP and larger parts 
without.

IMHO the problem with programming is that it needs more brain than we have.  
Therefore, if you only have a hammer, everything looks like a thumb: 
whatever single tool you give to people, they will manage to use it to hit 
their thumb.

-- 
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://bernd-paysan.de/
net2o ID: kQusJzA;7*?t=uy@X}1GWr!+0qqp_Cn176t4(dQ*

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

#37166

On 3/10/15 9:17 PM, Steve Graham wrote:
> Over the years, I've seen posts here in c.l.f. denying the need for
> OOP. And personally I have rarely used it in almost 35 years of programming.
>
> Interesting to hear criticism of the concept from leaders in the CS field:
>
> http://www.quora.com/Was-object-oriented-programming-a-failure/answer/Michael-O-Church?share=1
>
> Steve

Once one gets past the sign-in chore, the '51 other answers' appear to 
mostly support OOP, with the usual qualifications.  Is that part of what 
you found interesting?

-Doug

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

#37171

On Wednesday, March 11, 2015 at 7:18:20 AM UTC-7, Doug Hoffman wrote:
> On 3/10/15 9:17 PM, Steve Graham wrote:
> > Over the years, I've seen posts here in c.l.f. denying the need for
> > OOP. And personally I have rarely used it in almost 35 years of programming.
> >
> > Interesting to hear criticism of the concept from leaders in the CS field:
> >
> > http://www.quora.com/Was-object-oriented-programming-a-failure/answer/Michael-O-Church?share=1
> >
> > Steve
> 
> Once one gets past the sign-in chore, the '51 other answers' appear to 
> mostly support OOP, with the usual qualifications.  Is that part of what 
> you found interesting?
> 
> -Doug

I didn't realize that there was so much pushback against OOP from some big names in CS.

I think some of the comments express a common sense view:  Use it when necessary.  Apparently it was designed to manage complexity, not to add to it.

Steve

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

#37173

On 3/11/15 12:01 PM, Steve Graham wrote:

> I think some of the comments express a common sense view:  Use it
> when necessary.

Yes.  Absolutely.  OOP is just one more tool of many available.


> Apparently it was designed to manage complexity, not
> to add to it.

Agreed.  I recommend that anyone looking at my Forth objects extensions 
use the single inheritance version: FMS-SI.  FMS-SI is simple enough and 
small enough to be readily understood, yet complete enough for any 
project.  It uses Anton Ertl's clever concept of hybrid methods so that 
fast vtables can be used without having them grow large.

There is a multiple inheritance version, modeled after Mike Hore's Mops. 
  I've received negative feedback on the complexity and code size, and I 
understand that concern.  But if you need ANS MI, I don't know where 
else you can get it.

Probably the most significant distinction of FMS is the ability to 
freely use messages, stand-alone with no object reference required, 
mixed in with normal Forth code.  Very Forthy, I think.

-Doug

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

#37169

All I got from reading the article was that Stephanov doesn't like OOP and O'Church  dislikes what gets passed off as OOP.

Somewhere in the middle Michael says : "What went wrong? People rushed to use the complex stuff ... when it wasn't necessary, and often with a poor understanding of the fundamentals. 


Hardly reason to blame the concept.


Did I miss anything ? 
 

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

#37182

Steve Graham wrote:

> Over the years, I've seen posts here in c.l.f. denying the need for OOP. 
> And personally I have rarely used it in almost 35 years of programming.
> 
> Interesting to hear criticism of the concept from leaders in the CS field:
> 
> http://www.quora.com/Was-object-oriented-programming-a-failure/answer/Michael-O-Church?share=1
> 
> Steve

It is sometimes hard to figure out where the boundaries are between the 
different proclaimed styles of programming. My view might be down to the 
deeply embedded environments I deal with (where Finite State Machines and 
Component Oriented Design seem to work well). I probably use a number of 
styles without really thinking about which one I am using. So, my question 
is "why are we so concerned?"

-- 
********************************************************************
Paul E. Bennett IEng MIET.....<email://Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk>
Forth based HIDECS Consultancy.............<http://www.hidecs.co.uk>
Mob: +44 (0)7811-639972
Tel: +44 (0)1392-426688
Going Forth Safely ..... EBA. www.electric-boat-association.org.uk..
********************************************************************

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth

csiph-web