11–20 of 123 posts
i haven't read the whole text of this yet. but god damn it, all that text.. and that layout... thats a disaster that must end.
At first I thought it was because I had javascript disabled on the site, but nope, enabling it didn't help one bit. It's almost as if the site was designed to be solely read on some tiny-screened mobile device or something, with all that text squished in the middle.
It doesn't bode well for this article when they make a mistake in the first line. It's "Scotsman", not "Scottsman".
Until I hit the Java scene. Boy, is it a big mess. There I found some of the worst unreadable, unmaintainable, ungrokable, complex and brittle code I've ever seen. And that's not an exception, rather it's the standard. I suddenly understood why Python's logging implementation is such a disaster. It was ported from Java. I'm sorry if this offends the java programmers, but it feels like idiomatic java is just abstractions piled on abstractions upon patterns, in the hope of somehow making things more understandable or robust. It doesn't.
I've always thought of OO as simply abstraction and encapsulation. Functions on steroids, if you will. If something doesn't fit the OO paradigm, I don't try to shoehorn it in (which patterns seem to especially made for). If you manage to avoid doing that, OO works rather well if you ask me.
A little bit of data hiding wouldn't have gone amiss.
This is something I miss from the discussion: for each computational problem there is one tool which is "best" to solve it. Sometimes it is some esoteric Haskell magic and sometimes it is some lowlevel C++ bit manipulation.
What I would love to see monthly or quarteryearly "competition" between functional and object oriented programmers. For each competition a jury selects a problem and then everybody can try to solve this problem as nice and clean as possible for his preferred programming language / paradigm. The best solutions are then judged / commented on by experts and put on a website. By this you would have perfect examples how e…
Right now I've gotten to the point where he writes "We should note the irony that they are using Linux to explain OOP concepts, even though Linux is written in C, which is not an OOP language."
And yet... it implements OO concepts throughout the kernel. He then quotes Torvalds' comment about C++, yet does not mention that OO concepts are used.
This guy references the most random things. Some guy on HN and a Kuro5hin article from 2002 (he ought to look up my article on Buddhism, which shows that anyone could write anything on K5)...
No offense, but this massive rant could do with a copyeditor. More brevity would help me understand what point he is trying to make.
scala> def hasUppercase(s: String) = s.exists(_.isUpper)
hasUppercase: (s: String)Boolean
scala> hasUppercase("Charlie Brown")
res2: Boolean = true
scala> hasUppercase("schmuck")
res3: Boolean = false