"Oops..." an article needing a reply?
Blake
blake at kingdomrpg.com
Mon Mar 13 22:58:19 UTC 2006
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.
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|