home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.object
- Path: sparky!uunet!decwrl!csus.edu!netcom.com!objsys
- From: Bob Hathaway <objsys@netcom.com>
- Subject: Re: O.M() versus M(O) notation
- Message-ID: <h+0m4-m.objsys@netcom.com>
- Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 03:06:31 GMT
- Organization: Object Systems
- References: <__5mtrq.objsys@netcom.com>> <PCG.92Aug14170701@aberdb.aber.ac.uk> <1992Aug15.215315.29866@sei.cmu.edu>
- Lines: 22
-
- In article <1992Aug15.215315.29866@sei.cmu.edu>, goodsenj@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu (John Goodsen) writes:
- >> Bertrand Meyer is probably the chief opponent to this
- >>view. He says that one of the chief advantages of OOP is that it
- >>*combines* interfaces with code, and that people who try to seperate
- >>them are making a mistake. Thus, it would be a mistake to think that
- >>there is a concensus on this issue.
- >
- >Could you point us to where BM has stated this? I'm finding
- >it hard to believe that a sane person would make such a claim,
- >and assuming sane people have made this claim, I'm uinterested to
- >understand the reasoning behind it....
-
- I agree. Class-based typing forms a very rigid structure in which every
- object or class must inherit from the same class or else. This may be
- fine for trivial formal systems or in systems which do not change very
- often; if you want it to match then inherit from it. But more flexible
- systems require a looser coupling for greater power and distributed systems
- do not want the "inherit from *my* class or else" requirement since such a
- requirement is unreasonable in any context where looser coupling is desired.
-
- bob
- objsys@netcom.com
-