On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 09:36:06 -0700, Michael Rueger <michael at impara.de>  
wrote:

> Blake wrote:
>
>>> Some neat stuff but the ROTFLMAO bit was  
>>> http://www.devx.com/DevX/Article/26776/0/page/1 Somebody please
>>> fire the ClueGun at this guy.
>>   That's a put-on, right?
>
> Well, he's got a point when you take his perception of OOP as being MS's  
> libraries (replace OOP with MS ;-)):

It felt a little too much to me like pre-planned apostasy. "Well,  
everyone's doing this OO thing, so I will, too, but only until I can  
criticize it." In other words, he never made the paradigm shift. Which,  
perhaps, given his age, is not too startling.

The thing is his arguments are valid--but they apply equally, if not  
doubly so to procedural programming.

>> The peculiar, inhuman grammatical features in C++ and OOP's
>> gratuitous taxonomies continue to waste enormous amounts of
>> programming time.

Well, C++, sure. The best way I've found to work in C++ is to use OOP at  
the large-scale, but use it like C in the trenches. If that makes sense.  
(Well, actually, more like Pascal in the trenches. :-))