> With what some people think OOP should be, it's almost as difficult. > Mainly because often you have to figure out the whole inheritance tree > to figure out what the (@#*$ is going on. Exactly! I am reverse engineering software as primary job. Majority of cases we have no source to see, and only some case they had left the debug symbols in the binary. An assembly written code is always easy to be decoded and understood. Even the trickiest rootkit or polymorphic header is easy to see. An OO written code is horrible sometimes - not impossible but takes time to fully analyse those. Similarly a multi threaded concurrent program is not so easy to get it throuh on the relations in between the threads the shared objects, the synchronization mechanishm etc. OO and multi threading / multi processing is for human, we could imagine our program easier like that. Tamas On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 9:03 AM, Forrest W Christian wrote: > Vitaliy wrote: > > The "macho programmers" ("real men program in assembler, OOP is for > > wussies", etc) will surely disagree. > Personally, I find both ends of the spectrum above less than readable > for maintenance purposes. > > With assembly, it is quite difficult to encode enough hints into the > actual code so that you can understand what is going on - especially if > you are operating without useful comments. That is, the coding is so > close to the machine level that you almost have to think in assembler to > make any sense out of it. Most of your maintenance is looking at the > code and determining how it accomplishes (or not) what the comment says. > > With what some people think OOP should be, it's almost as difficult. > Mainly because often you have to figure out the whole inheritance tree > to figure out what the (@#*$ is going on. > > Give me a well written chunk of code in a procedural language such as C > (or basic, or perl, or php for that matter) and I'm happy. > > -forrest > > -- > http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive > View/change your membership options at > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist > -- Rudonix DoubleSaver http://www.rudonix.com -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist