Not that I don't see what he's getting at, but it doesn't really apply to the real world (and that of programming). For example, he says that get and set methods are evil. That would mean to me that objects aren't reusable in his world.
Take for example a coffee machine object (this is how a former colleague explained OO to a PHB, worked quite well :) - The coffee machine needs data input, I need to set the value of its water container to full (ie fill it), the coffee, the type I want, etc. pp. If I can do this only once, when I create the object, then I can only create coffee until it's empty, and then I need a new machine.. (!?)
I also have a separate object, a cup/mug/glass/whatever, into which I wish to put my coffee. What does the machine know about cups? Nothing! I should merely tell it to output the coffee, and let me deal with where it lands. A coffee machine shouldn't have to also produce cups, or whatever. (And theres another case in point, we have here coffee machines which output a plastic cup filled with coffee. Most people take a real cup, and tip the coffee into it, throwing away the plastic one. Thus creating unnecessary waste.)
An object should do the job it was designed to do (manipulate data, whatever), and not 57 other vaguely related ones..
(My Opinion)
C.
*Wondering how the article writer populates his objects, should go back and read the rest...*
In reply to Re: (OT) OOUI: multiple views in an object.
by castaway
in thread (OT) OOUI: multiple views in an object.
by BUU
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |