[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Picking the Tools -- Marrying processing models to data model s
- From: Joel Rees <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: email@example.com
- Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 15:14:10 +0900
Iwaku Uche Ogbuji:
> I'm not sure how encapsulation grew from this bit of tidy practice into a
> general modeling world view, but the result is certainly flawed.
> > Again, I tried on at least 5 different projects to build these re-usable
> > components but it just never happened. Eventually I read the einstein
> > about insane people always trying the same thing and expecting different
> > results, and realized where I fit in the quote.
> Reusability is one of the biggest lies of OO. I personally think that
> code reusability is the philosopher's stone: it would be a source of
> never-ending value, but there is the small problem that it doesn't exist.
Lie? Sales pitch? Point of view? Incurable optimism?
Many OO idealists forget, for whatever reason, to mention their constraints.
Without the constraints, I don't get anywhere.
(I like to read the eXtreme Programming stuff. And I cast an ugly epithet at
Microsoft for re-purposing yet another acronym.)
I'm just beginning to get the hang of OO, and I think it's useful in its
place, especially if I mostly avoid deliberately trying to write re-useable
XML is the post-OO thingy.
============================XML as Best Solution===
Joel Rees $B%j!<%9!!%8%g%(%k(B
Media Fusion Co.,Ltd. $B3t<02qhttp://www.mediafusion.co.jp