willyschmerz: (Default)

I find OOP technically unsound. It attempts to decompose the world in terms of interfaces that vary on a single type. To deal with the real problems you need multisorted algebras - families of interfaces that span multiple types. I find OOP philosophically unsound. It claims that everything is an object. Even if it is true it is not very interesting - saying that everything is an object is saying nothing at all. I find OOP methodologically wrong. It starts with classes. It is as if mathematicians would start with axioms. You do not start with axioms - you start with proofs. Only when you have found a bunch of related proofs, can you come up with axioms. You end with axioms. The same thing is true in programming: you have to start with interesting algorithms. Only when you understand them well, can you come up with an interface that will let them work.

Це тільки мені здається, чи шановний автор STLю з'їхав з глузду і виголошує повну нісенітницю, особливо у виділеній мною частині?
willyschmerz: (Default)
о дивизии "Нахтигаль" слышали?

Власне, за посиланням ходити не обов'язково (там, вибачте, срач). Але саме по собі поставлене питання - хіба не прекрасне?