[dba-Tech] C++ to vb.net conversion

Well I read the first article and I'm not impressed.  A lot of vitriol and
absolutely nothing advanced as an alternative.  

There are just a ton of things that classes make trivial that are a royal
PITA without them.  I am a "single programmer" and I use classes all the
time.  I use them because there are many places where I need to instantiate
more than a single instance of an object, the class holds all the data
structures and the code, it is just there, I wrote it, I understand it, I
just use it.  Now granted because this is Access, I am not using the
inheritance thing (though I wish I could).  There is absolutely NOTHING
difficult about writing classes.  Trivial to understand, trivial to write,
trivial to use.

As for cutting and pasting code... OH MY GOD.  I think that pretty much says
it all for me.  Anyone who is going to cut and paste any non-trivial code
would NEVER earn a position in my organization.

John W. Colby
www.ColbyConsulting.com 

Contribute your unused CPU cycles to a good cause:
http://folding.stanford.edu/

-----Original Message-----
From: dba-tech-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
[mailto:dba-tech-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of MartyConnelly
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 7:26 PM
To: Discussion of Hardware and Software issues
Subject: Re: [dba-Tech] C++ to vb.net conversion


 Well I am an unabashed proceduralist and would much prefer to write 
Fast Fourier Transforms in APL than having
to do it with an OOP language. I have been on teams using UML to churn 
out PL1 or Cobol code. I don't mind patterns, however on an OOP team, I
always feel like I am in a trench and the shelling is getting 
heavier and everyone else is huddled down
debating whether to load their rifles with .303 or 7.62 Ammo.

 Grady Brooch the father of OOP who worked at Rational Software before 
it was sold to IBM
two years ago ,well now he is is dropping work on UML at IBM and working 
on patterns for something called
aspect oriented development. This would be something like as an example, 
the security aspect of system to system connectivity,
assuming similar underlying patterns..

Some thoughts on Ooops, procedural and generic programming problems

OOP Is Much Better in Theory Than in Practice
Think object-orient programming (OOP) is the only way to go? You poor, 
misguided soul. Richard Mansfield contends that OOP is just the latest in a
history of ideas that sound good in theory but are clumsy in practice.

by Richard Mansfield
http://www.devx.com/DevX/Article/26776

And all the hate mail in response
http://forums.devx.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=136762

Further thoughts from Mansfield http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/oopbad.htm

Richard Grimes on VB.NET  and VB6  columnist at Dr Dobb's Journals What
Microsoft missed. http://www.ddj.com/documents/s=9211/ddj050201dnn/

Shamil Salakhetdinov wrote:

>Marty,
>
>I meant mainly UML used for OOP real-life projects design & development 
>not just UML for database model diagramming - the latter is rather 
>trivial these days, the first is still state-of-the-art. But the first 
>was investigated a lot during last ten+ years and there are very useful 
>results IMO.  I did recently get through "Applying UML and Patterns" by 
>Craig Larman - it shows that UML is a practical not an academic tool 
>and that when combined with Software Design Patterns then it becomes 
>even more powerful and more practical tool...
>
>Shamil