Re^3: Possibly Stupid OOP question (order)

in reply to Re^2: Possibly Stupid OOP question (order)
in thread Possibly Stupid OOP question

It is funny that most OO books bang on about inheritance so much when the guy who invented the term OO thinks that OO is:

"OOP to me means only messaging, local retention and protection and hiding of state-process, and extreme late-binding of all things." -- Alan Kay

___________________
Jeremy
Bots of the disorder.

Comment on Re^3: Possibly Stupid OOP question (order)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Possibly Stupid OOP question (OO) by tye (Sage) on Feb 27, 2008 at 06:36 UTC
I think this is such a common pitfall, at least in part, because a person writing a tutorial about OO needs to mention and explain inheritance and so also feels compelled to explain the "power" and "benefits" of inheritance. The pitfall is going on and on about the benefits, rarely even mentioning the pitfalls, and using really sucky examples to explain all of the things that can be done with inheritance. Though I'm often quite disappointed that tutorials on OO nearly fail to mention data organization, data hiding, and associating the code with the data it works on. Those are the big wins of OO for me. - tye	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^4: Possibly Stupid OOP question (OO)
by tye (Sage) on Feb 27, 2008 at 06:36 UTC

I think this is such a common pitfall, at least in part, because a person writing a tutorial about OO needs to mention and explain inheritance and so also feels compelled to explain the "power" and "benefits" of inheritance. The pitfall is going on and on about the benefits, rarely even mentioning the pitfalls, and using really sucky examples to explain all of the things that can be done with inheritance.

Though I'm often quite disappointed that tutorials on OO nearly fail to mention data organization, data hiding, and associating the code with the data it works on. Those are the big wins of OO for me.

- tye

[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom