[gameprogrammer] Re: "Mission Efficiency" - Blue Collar coding

<snip>

>Hey, i don't have anything against OO as an optional programming technique.
>I _strongly_ protest it as a religion, especially as an _obligatory_
>religion. What no one seems to be asking is, for any given app, are the
>benefits of OO worth the cost? No point asking - if u wanna write code for
>a PC today, u use OO.
>
>It is my sordid, heretical little secret (Bob already knows - others, cover
>your eyes!) that IMO OO, as implemented in any of the popular Windows dev
>envs, is by and large counterproductive. By that i mean, its cost is not
>often larger than its benefits.
>
>And before everyone crawls all over me on this, have a good hard look at
>what you've been told the "benefits" of OO are. There's not many of them
>that i haven't enjoyed as a matter of programming style for the last 35
>years, and i never touched an OO environment until, oh, '97. But, i 
>digress...
>
> >What should be worrying you is the line "joe display" should it be
> >before or after 'joe print "Hello World"'? Should it be there at all?
>
>My vote is it shouldn't be there at all, because if i say something as
>basic as "print", it's pretty safe assumption i want it to hit the screen.
>Of course i also want a way to build a frame and flip to it when it's
>ready, but that should be handled by a different output protocol.
>
> >> Because, boys'n'gals, _everything_ that's not part of the module's 
>mission,
> >> is a distraction and a dilution of the programmer's effort.
> >>
> >> Yeah, well, i'm already in high rant, and i haven't even gotten to the
> >> question Bob asked. I will, but first, think about this: how much of 
>your
> >> work as programmers is spent writing the program _u_ need to write, and 
>how
> >> much is spent dicking around dealing with things that have little or no
> >> relationship to it? I think that ratio - (C-level / total) is critical 
>in
> >> evaluating your dev env. Blue Collar Coders like it reeeeal low.
> >>
> >> fire away - grant :)
> >
> >You got it! I like the way you think.
>
>Thank u, sir, u ain't too shabby yerself! :)
>
>Assumptions need a periodic rattling, and on the issue of ME, it's well
>past time. Besides, sacred cows make the best hamburger ;)
>
>cheers - grant


I actually agree with you, one of the things I don't understand, why when 
one Object fails the whole program fails? Why not limit it to the object 
(since it's independent of everything else) Why does a tree fall when a leaf 
does?

_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. 
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail

Other related posts: