Basically yes

Post #443,724 by drook 12/4/23 3:24:05 PM 12/4/23 3:24:05 PM Reply	Basically yes Bryce took a strong position that OOP was evil and tables solve everything. He made it very hard to argue a middle-of-the-road view on the other side. Java was a great example of both an implementation of OOP, and the pathology of taking it too far, eg: with factory factories. (Is that a joke? I was never quite sure.) I've been away from the pointy end for long enough that I can't speak to inheritance vs. composition, but your larger point that different things are good for different problems makes sense. I've always been a bad evangelist for languages or methodologies, because I really care about why we're doing it this way and finding the right tool for the job, rather than just swinging the hammer harder. -- Drew
Post #443,729 by crazy 12/4/23 3:58:13 PM 12/4/23 3:58:13 PM Reply	I saw both ways too Table driven programming was the cornerstone of my existence. I created tables to drive the logic. Then I handed the tables off to the junior people to maintain. That meant I had to create an interpretive engine for the logic but it worked for me. But then I saw things that were OOP intrinsic. IBM built a printer stream language based on OOP inheritance. It matched the language perfectly. So then my brain fell into applying OOP to the problem. Then it enabled me to think that way. I could see where it was incredibly productive for this particular problem. But not most of my problems. Most of my problems were straight code or table driven. But in occasional problem really loved an OOP approach.
Post #443,752 by static 12/6/23 12:39:13 AM 12/6/23 12:39:13 AM Reply	Yah. Java is object-ish at best. I learnt more about how OO programming is supposed to work in a short Scala course than years faffing around in Java. Java is somewhere between "object-oriented" and "object-aware". And then if you want to look at a real object-oriented system, your best option is Smalltak. Wade.

Welcome to IWETHEY!