Observer Design Pattern

D

Daniel T.

Diego said:
I was thinking the "boaz" was an ENGRISH troll with his opinion already
formed (ill-formed) about GoF patterns

but now, I see the "boaz" was using the GoF patterns like strict APIs

No, I think you were right the first time.
 
B

boaz_sade

Diego said:
very good post :)

now, all is clear to me about this thread

I was thinking the "boaz" was an ENGRISH troll with his opinion already
formed (ill-formed) about GoF patterns

but now, I see the "boaz" was using the GoF patterns like strict APIs

design patterns are ideas. annotated and discussed ideas.

honest :)
If we are getting personal - I was thinking that "Diego Martins" stand
for a fool in english and now I know that I'm right.
If other care to know tough why STL and GoF have nothing in common
though then this was taken from inverew with Spetanov the creator of
the STL -
" I think STL and Generic Programming mark a definite departure from
the common C++ programming style, which I find is almost completely
derived from SmallTalk. Do you agree?

Answer:
Yes. STL is not object oriented. I think that object orientedness is
almost as much of a hoax as Artificial Intelligence. I have yet to see
an interesting piece of code that comes from these OO people. In a
sense, I am unfair to AI: I learned a lot of stuff from the MIT AI Lab
crowd, they have done some really fundamental work: Bill Gosper's
Hakmem is one of the best things for a programmer to read. AI might not
have had a serious foundation, but it produced Gosper and Stallman
(Emacs), Moses (Macsyma) and Sussman (Scheme, together with Guy
Steele). I find OOP technically unsound. It attempts to decompose the
world in terms of interfaces that vary on a single type. To deal with
the real problems you need multisorted algebras - families of
interfaces that span multiple types. I find OOP philosophically
unsound. It claims that everything is an object. Even if it is true it
is not very interesting - saying that everything is an object is saying
nothing at all. I find OOP methodologically wrong. It starts with
classes. It is as if mathematicians would start with axioms. You do not
start with axioms - you start with proofs. Only when you have found a
bunch of related proofs, can you come up with axioms. You end with
axioms. The same thing is true in programming: you have to start with
interesting algorithms. Only when you understand them well, can you
come up with an interface that will let them work."
Since the name of the GoF book is - the full name - "Design Patterns:
Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software" I don't see how those
two can coexists (in trem of the philosy behind them).
More specifucly unlike this Diego Martins I know what API is and I know
that their book is not something that you just copy and past from. But
I simly think that Spetanov is right in what he is saying about OOP and
other things
More spesificly - the fact that STL iterator like somewhat like what
GoF iterator dont mean its the same. If you look for interface similary
then maybe you think of the design pattern as kind "API" but the basic
consept of STL is contanier, algorithems and iterators that combine the
2 formers together. the true anlog of iterators in STL is a pointer
plain and simple, actualy vector iterator is a pointer, no class not
OOP simple and clean cocept. This is simply something I failed to find
in the GoF book. But then again if someone think that he/she found the
light there then use this book I realy don't care as long as I don't
have to deal with his/her code
Lets hope that it will never become so personal again..
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
473,744
Messages
2,569,484
Members
44,903
Latest member
orderPeak8CBDGummies

Latest Threads

Top