> X-Authentication-Warning: enfield.sics.se: joe owned process doing -bs
> Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 10:40:00 +0200 (CEST)
> From: Joe Armstrong <joe>
> << and yes, I guess you will response that "Joe is attacking Java and
> not OOP. He has confused the ideas of OOP with what is present in Java".
> To which I would answer "since there is no generally accepted idea as
> what OOP means I am forced to pick a specific language which claims to
> be an OO language and then tell you what's wrong with it" >>
there is an oo book, without language. ie, a book that claims to deal
with oo, and not a particular oo language. it is ''object oriented
software construction'', by bertrand meyer. perhaps it would be
possible to aim the anti-oo critique towards the ideas in that book?
failing that, would it not be better to pick a ''good'' oo language? if
nothing else it would avoid the ''that is just a strawman'' type of
argumentation you are refering to.
On Tue, 27 May 2003 10:54:47 +0200 (MEST)
Bengt Kleberg <eleberg> wrote:
> there is an oo book, without language. ie, a book that claims to deal
> with oo, and not a particular oo language. it is ''object oriented
> software construction'', by bertrand meyer. perhaps it would be
> possible to aim the anti-oo critique towards the ideas in that book?
That book, while well written, is very much with a language: Eiffel. The
author explains at the end of the book that he has just taught you
Eiffel. (Which he hopefully would then have you purchase it from his company ;-)
Meyer tends to criticize other OO languages (Java, Smalltalk, etc) as being too soft (vague, etc). He is a very opinionated and passionate OO advocate.