Anti-OOP... stupid?

[H. S. Teoh]

On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 06:42:02PM -0500, bearophile wrote:
> H. S. Teoh:
> 
> > I mean, if you take OO to the extreme, that would require excluding all
> > those evil procedural constructs like if statements and for loops, and
> > write everything in terms of invoking object methods...  like this
> > monstrosity:
> > 
> > class MyClass {
> > 	void myMethod() {
> > 		IntVariable i;
> > 		ForLoopFactory.create(
> > 			new IntSetter(i.address(), new Number(0)),
> > 			new BooleanCondition(
> > 				new LessThanComparator(i.address(),
> > 					100)),
> > 			new IntAdder(&i, 1),
> > 			new IfStatement(
> > 				new EqualComparator(i.address(),
> > 					new Number(42)),
> > 				new FunctionCaller(writeln.address(),
> > 					new String("Found it!")),
> > 			)
> > 		).execute();
> > 	}
> > }
> > 
> > which is, of course, completely ridiculous.
> 
> Smalltalk is a language composed of a very small number of parts,
> where every thing is an object. So in a sense, you write code like
> that, with a better syntax.
[...]

True, but that doesn't mean that it's evil to not program in Smalltalk.
:-)


T

-- 
Don't modify spaghetti code unless you can eat the consequences.