Board index » delphi » Re: Delphi kicks C# butt

Re: Delphi kicks C# butt


2004-08-20 12:21:07 AM
delphi58
Mike Margerum writes:
Quote

I dont think its really that silly. OO may be a boon for programmers
in terms of frameworks developed for them but I dont think the average
programmer to this day is comfortable or even productive in an OO
enviroment. They tend to use objects to aggreagate functionality but
that's pretty much where their use of OO ends.
As with any profession there are practitioners that vary widely in skills.
The reasons for the variance also varies - some are unable to grasp some
ideas, others just don't care to and are satisfied with their current
skills.
Quote
I think for a lot of
projects OO isn't necessary and may even impede progress. If C just
had basic string and date types, it would still be quite usuable even
today.
IMHO this is like saying a power screwdriver may impede progress for those
comfortable using a manual one. For average home-owner (i.e.
non-professional) this may very well be true - if you use a screwdriver a
few times in a year, the cost of a power driver is most likely a waste. But
if, e.g. a professional drywaller insisted he could be more productive using
a manual screwdriver, I would hire someone else.
--
Wayne Niddery - Logic Fundamentals, Inc. (www.logicfundamentals.com)
RADBooks: www.logicfundamentals.com/RADBooks.html
"It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can
stand by itself." - Thomas Jefferson
 
 

Re: Delphi kicks C# butt

Wayne Niddery [TeamB] in <4124d37e$XXXX@XXXXX.COM>writes:
Quote
likely a waste. But if, e.g. a professional drywaller insisted he
could be more productive using a manual screwdriver, I would hire someone
else.
Unless he was Steve Austin, the six million-dollar man ;)
--
John Kaster, Borland Developer Relations, bdn.borland.com
BorCon2004, all info in one place! info.borland.com/conf2004
Features and bugs: qc.borland.com
Get source: cc.borland.com
Unofficial information overload: blogs.borland.com
 

Re: Delphi kicks C# butt

Quote
As with any profession there are practitioners that vary widely in skills.
The reasons for the variance also varies - some are unable to grasp some
ideas, others just don't care to and are satisfied with their current
skills.

Very true. I use OO quite a bit but it took me many years to really
grasp it to the point where I used it naturally. I was stuck writing
C+ because my brain worked procedurally after 7 years of C
programming.
Quote
IMHO this is like saying a power screwdriver may impede progress for those
comfortable using a manual one. For average home-owner (i.e.
non-professional) this may very well be true - if you use a screwdriver a
few times in a year, the cost of a power driver is most likely a waste. But
if, e.g. a professional drywaller insisted he could be more productive using
a manual screwdriver, I would hire someone else.

I don't think you are getting me. As I said, OO can make people more
productive by USING a framework like the VCL. I question it's
usefulness when building your OWN objects because most people are just
writing procedural code that is wrapped up in objects anyhow. I
rarely see polymorphism or proper inheritance implemented by a
programmer whose code I inherit. it is mostly just badly written and
organzied objects. I'd have almost rather had them just build
procedures with local statics.
Sometimes it easier to build applications procedurally when you don't
have the proper design up front. I find having to write and refactor
objects prohibitive when I am coding on the fly. If you've got a
large project and the time and budget to use UML tools that generate
code, I think you could get a lot more out of the OO process.
 

Re: Delphi kicks C# butt

Mike Margerum writes:
Quote
>
Very true. I use OO quite a bit but it took me many years to really
grasp it to the point where I used it naturally. I was stuck writing
C+ because my brain worked procedurally after 7 years of C
programming.
I went through the same process, I had programmed professionally for 6 years
and informally off and on for the preceding 10 before I began learning OO.
But now (for a long time now) I can not imagine coding anything without
objects no matter how simple the application.
Quote
I don't think you are getting me. As I said, OO can make people more
productive by USING a framework like the VCL. I question it's
usefulness when building your OWN objects because most people are just
writing procedural code that is wrapped up in objects anyhow.
I get you, but I disagree...
Quote
I rarely see polymorphism or proper inheritance implemented by a
programmer whose code I inherit. it is mostly just badly written and
organzied objects. I'd have almost rather had them just build
procedures with local statics.
With this I can agree, I have seen some horrible things done by people who
thought they were using OO and in such cases it is no less spaghetti then
any other horrible code (arguably it can be even worse). However, on the
first part, inheritance/polymorphism are not the only justifications for
objects. Sufficient justification is simply organization of code and data.
In an application of any real size, the majority of objects will never use
inheritance or polymorphism nor ever be used in other applications.
Quote
Sometimes it easier to build applications procedurally when you don't
have the proper design up front. I find having to write and refactor
objects prohibitive when I am coding on the fly.
I don't. Even when I am just playing around with things for research or
learning, I think in terms of objects. Of course it could be done without
objects, but I just don't think of it anymore. Creating objects to represent
the things I am trying to do has become my method of thinking about and
solving programming problems.
--
Wayne Niddery - Logic Fundamentals, Inc. (www.logicfundamentals.com)
RADBooks: www.logicfundamentals.com/RADBooks.html
Bandwagons are like streetcars, there'll be another along in a few
minutes.