On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 10:49:38 -0800, Craig Latta <craig at netjam.org> wrote:

>
> 	Yet another fluff piece from O'Reilly. Wow, what a surprise.

I don't think I'd describe it as "fluff", exactly. A fluff piece usually  
just repeats some conventional wisdom and is harmless. Though perhaps  
that's what he IS doing, and I'm simply not aware of the conventions the  
wisdom is coming from.<s>

It's not a harmless idea, though. I'm always inclined to take someone  
seriously when they challenge a deeply held notion (of mine, it's no big  
deal to take someone seriously when they challenge someone else's deeply  
held notions<s>) but I got through the first half of the article feeling  
like this was one of those guys who never really "got" OOP, and that he  
was unaware of the fact that much effort has gone into correcting its  
shortcomings.

The second half, I couldn't follow at all. It wasn't clear to me that what  
he was proposing was any different from what we already have--a kind of  
chaotic mixture of expedient solutions. If so, then all he's really saying  
is, "Things are going great! Keep it up!" and I retract my earlier  
statement about it not being fluff. Heh.