Re: [dev] Conversation with Anselm R. Garbe of

From: Robert C Corsaro <>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 10:19:45 -0400

Anselm R Garbe wrote:
> 2009/9/14 Amit Uttamchandani <>:
>> My question is that, there are some approaches that 'seem'
>> easier/logical to implement with OO, how does one approach this in a not
>> OO way?
> Well that was my excuse when I was a fan of OO as well, that there are
> plenty problems "better solved" using OO. When carefully thinking
> about it, I always concluded, no, this problem is better not solved
> the OO way.
> Can you give examples where you think OO is the better choice?
> My current situation is this: I think OO is the better choice if you
> need to solve a problem for OO itself, eg if you are writing API or
> language bindings that rely on OO design. But that's the only example
> I cam across so far where I believe OO really is better to solve a
> problem created by OO itself ;) But that doesn't applies to the
> general purpose obviously.
> Kind regards,
> Anselm
So if I find myself thinking that this code would be simpler to
understand if it was OO, then your response would be that my data
structure is wrong? Don't get me wrong, I'm no OO advocate, but I do
use it occasionally. If you are right, then my brain is just damaged
from learning C++ and Java years ago, and I'm not seeing the big
picture. But usually, when you change the data structure, you also need
to change the code, unless you code is extremely generic(which has it's
own problems). I prefer to keep things as simple as possible because
I'm so stupid.
Received on Mon Sep 14 2009 - 14:19:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Sep 14 2009 - 14:24:02 UTC