OT - Re: GPL Java
rosswerner at gmail.com
Sun Nov 12 10:32:15 MST 2006
Let's do two at once here.
On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 20:17:04 -0800, Levi Pearson <levi at cold.org> wrote:
> What makes component.paint() noun-oriented and paint(component) verb-
> oriented? Both are 'sentences' of one noun and one verb, combined with
> some punctuation. If this whole 'noun-oriented' thing is just about
> noun/verb ordering, I don't think it's really saying anything at all.
> Anyway, that's about all I have to say about this subject. I think the
> whole 'Execution in the Kingdom of Nouns' rant was lacking in depth to
> begin with, and it pretty much boils down to 'Steve Yegge thinks
> Java-style OOP programming is awkward'.
Sounds like we're pretty much in agreement. :) That's all I was trying to
say, too, and apparently we both thought each other was trying to say
On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 21:26:04 -0800, Hans Fugal <hans at fugal.net> wrote:
> Now, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Either Java is
> noun-centric and requiring you to make static methods of the Main class
> is silly (it is), or noun-centrism is a red herring.
Obviously I believe the latter. (Also, I personally don't believe that
static methods are any different functionally from stand-alone functions
in a namespace, so unless you believe that completely global functions
without namespaces are a good idea, I think we're in agreement here, too.)
> OOP is not about object.method(), OOP is about associating behaviors
> with objects, which do data encapsulation and hiding.
And all of Steve's examples:
get the garbage bag from under the sink
carry it out to the garage
dump it in the garbage can
walk back inside
wash your hands
plop back down on the couch
resume playing your video game (or whatever you were doing)
are all behaviors that are not associated with objects. He then goes on to
bemoan how Java (or the Java paradigm) forces you to associate your
behaviors with objects, rather than having the behaviors floating around
by themselves, free to operate on whatever objects they want.
> So the only way we disagree is that you say Java is noun-oriented
> because it's object-oriented, and I say you think object-oriented means
> noun-oriented because of Java.
I think the root problem here is that we both think this "noun-oriented"
business is crap, and in essence we're arguing over what we *think* Steve
Yegge meant. Which is, I suppose, a pretty dumb thing to argue over when,
in reality, neither of us probably differ at all with our opinions of how
object-oriented Java or Ruby or anything else really is. (At least,
nothing from this thread has led me to believe otherwise.)
Thanks for indulging me, in any case. It's been a while since I've had
time to rant on plug. :)
More information about the PLUG