OT - Re: GPL Java

[Ross Werner]

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  
something different.

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. :)

	~ Ross