On Tuesday, September 16, 2014 1:09:54 PM UTC+2, François Rey wrote:
>
>
> On 16/09/14 10:11, Kalina Todorova wrote:
>
> Relevant? Well it is always nice to find different articles that are
> bashing on the issues that could appear from badly designed OO programs if
> you want to get Cloju
On 16/09/14 10:11, Kalina Todorova
wrote:
Relevant? Well it is always nice to find different articles
that are bashing on the issues that could appear from badly
designed OO programs if you want to get Clojure into
conside
I did not imply that OO was absolutely bad. It's what people are doing
with it. It's been a plague for the last 10 years. The rope is long and thick,
more than enough to hang yourself in several reincarnations.
As far as using OO to represent the real world, it's a mistake.
Things are not as strai
Relevant? Well it is always nice to find different articles that are
bashing on the issues that could appear from badly designed OO programs if
you want to get Clojure into consideration in your organization.
I don't support that OO is bad. It is just complicate to constrain yourself
from making i
I think this article is partly true, at least in the OO world we know today.
I dealt with a number of OO based commercial softwares in the past 10 years
that used abstractions that were at best annoying, at worse made the internals
obscure up to a point where you wondered if these were added only
Looks like a pretty standard rather naif article by someone who knows
enough to be dangerous but not enough to actually understand about
trade-offs.
And I'm not sure why you think it's even slightly relevant to Clojure: or
did you think Clojure eschewed abstractions?
--
You received this mess
