[Edu-sig] More OOP bashing (& which metaphor is best?)

[kirby urner]

On 4/4/07, Paul D. Fernhout <pdfernhout at kurtz-fernhout.com> wrote:
> I just came across these links (bearing indirectly on the value of
> Python emphasizing both procedural and Object-Oriented Programming
> support as a language good for beginners and experts):
>
> See:
>  "Object Oriented Programming Oversold!"
>  http://oop.ismad.com/
> Or:
>  "Guide To Myths"
>  http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/myths.htm
>
> And:
>  "Why I Prefer Procedural/Relational Over OOP"
>  http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/whypr.htm

Yeah, studied that guy's website some years ago, including some
correspondance as I recall.  An old custom database programmer
like me, xBase family, rebelling against the OO trend which
subsequently took over xBase as well starting 1990s or so (witness
Microsoft VFP).

What a lot of this analysis neglects is the rich *interactive* semantics
we're able to define using dot notation, i.e. by making our objects
"top level" we have a lot of functionality organized by "thing" (as in
"I am a vector").

IDLE 1.2
>>> from stickworks import Vector
>>> v1 = Vector((1,0,0))
>>> v2 = Vector((0,1,0))
>>> v1.cross(v2)
Vector @ (0.0,0.0,1.0)
>>> v2.dot(v2)
1.0

is simply an intuitive way to keep vector ops "grouped" within the
entities which have a "need to know" (encapsulation).  A rich command
line experience is what Python provides.  You'd think B. Jacobs would
appreciate that, given the xBase "dot prompt" heritage.

http://www.4dsolutions.net/ocn/oopalgebra.html
http://www.4dsolutions.net/ocn/trends2000.html

Kirby