Speaking of strings... - Page 2


DevX Home    Today's Headlines   Articles Archive   Tip Bank   Forums   

Page 2 of 17 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 247

Thread: Speaking of strings...

  1. #16
    Larry Serflaten Guest

    Re: Speaking of strings...

    "W.E. (Bill) Goodrich,
    >
    > > > >Wise up Mike. OOP is here to stay.

    >
    > LOL!!! Are you really THAT naive? That would help explain a lot.


    Your links explained a lot about how you think as well. Of the 4 you
    posted only 1 was from a (outdated) source most would consider reputable:

    > http://iraf.noao.edu/iraf/web/ADASS/.../cogginsj.html


    Even there it states:


    There are three main weaknesses to the current formulation of object-oriented design and programming.

    First, OOP tends to encourage bottom-up design...
    Second, OOP tends to encourage toolkits of tiny classes...
    Third, OOP provides no good answer to the problems of asynchronous I/O or concurrent processing, as occurs in user interfaces.

    It looks like he is saying its not a good design because it can be misused, with maybe one shortfall
    in concurrent processing. Those are hardly make or break technology busters. Developer discipline
    is not the job of the language, and I/O and multi threading are being addressed, (FileStreams and
    Threads).

    Perhaps you should re-read this entire section because it refutes the idea you intended it to show:

    3.3. Can Object-Oriented Programming Have a Long-term Strategic Impact on Software Development? Yes.

    "OOP will not make developing your first project faster, nor your second. But with a good strategic core class library, later
    applications within the same family will be developed quicker and more reliably."

    LFS



  2. #17
    Jonathan West Guest

    Re: Speaking of strings...


    "Larry Serflaten" <serflaten@usinternet.com> wrote in message
    news:3da1b1c5@10.1.10.29...

    >
    > 3.3. Can Object-Oriented Programming Have a Long-term Strategic Impact on

    Software Development? Yes.
    >
    > "OOP will not make developing your first project faster, nor your second.

    But with a good strategic core class library, later
    > applications within the same family will be developed quicker and more

    reliably."

    But that is an argument in favor of code re-use, not OOP. Exactly the same
    can be said of the re-use of tested and working procedural code.

    Now, I'm not trying to suggest that OOP has no uses, it is just that your
    quote does not demonstrate its utility for the purpose you are claiming.

    One of the main complaints coming from Dan and others was that the language
    changes effectively prohibit the re-use of such code developed in earlier
    versions of VB. Since most of the syntax changes were not necessary for the
    purpose of making the language more OO, it seems to me that it is a valid
    question whether the sum total of the changes between VB6 and VB.NET have
    improved productivity for developers or teams extending existing
    applications or in possession of substantial VB6 code libraries.

    --
    Regards
    Jonathan West


  3. #18
    Paul Clement Guest

    Re: Speaking of strings...

    On Sun, 06 Oct 2002 11:15:31 +0100, Mike Mitchell <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

    On Sat, 5 Oct 2002 19:39:51 -0500, "Larry Serflaten"
    <serflaten@usinternet.com> wrote:

    >How about because there were many commands in VB that only worked
    >on strings (Left, Right, UCase, LCase, Trim, etc) which would be better
    >if they were simply methods of the string class.

    Why? What is wrong with functions like Left$, Trim$ etc?

    Nothing. They're still there if you want to use them as you have before. In, addition they've been
    methods of a class since VBA has been around so this isn't new in VB.NET. The fact that they are
    also know as functions is meaningless in this context.

    Or use a function. Again, why is a String now an object? Why?

    All data types are objects. Why is this a problem for you?


    Paul ~~~ pclement@ameritech.net
    Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)

  4. #19
    Kunle Odutola Guest

    Re: Speaking of strings...

    Mike Mitchell wrote:

    > Why? What is wrong with functions like Left$, Trim$ etc?


    Nothing. They still exist AFAIK.

    >> These are common methods
    >> mind you, used regularly, so it makes sense to have them as methods
    >> on the class.

    >
    > Why? What is better about a method than a function? Why?


    It is intuitively linked to the type (and data) it operates on. Given an
    instance of a String for instance, the IDE can prompt you about all sorts of
    things you can do with it or to it.......more productive than scouring the
    help pages for functions that can be applied to strings.

    > Again, why is a String now an object? Why?


    A String is a datatype. All datatypes in .NET are objects (or can be treated
    as such).

    HTH!

    Kunle


  5. #20
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: Speaking of strings...

    On Sun, 6 Oct 2002 15:17:27 -0500, "Larry Serflaten"
    <serflaten@usinternet.com> wrote:

    >Do you still have your mommy tie your shoes too?


    No, she died. So I wear slip-ons now.

    MM

  6. #21
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: Speaking of strings...

    On Mon, 7 Oct 2002 18:00:40 +0100, "Jonathan West" <jwest@mvps.org>
    wrote:

    >One of the main complaints coming from Dan and others was that the language
    >changes effectively prohibit the re-use of such code developed in earlier
    >versions of VB. Since most of the syntax changes were not necessary for the
    >purpose of making the language more OO, it seems to me that it is a valid
    >question whether the sum total of the changes between VB6 and VB.NET have
    >improved productivity for developers or teams extending existing
    >applications or in possession of substantial VB6 code libraries.


    I'm still waiting for the .Netizens to define and quantify their
    so-called improved productivity. (They drove that other thread
    specifically about productivity off into never-never land.) Beats me
    how it can be more productive to have to rewrite maybe millions of
    lines of perfectly working code in order to then see greater
    productivity in .Net. As for OOP in VB.Net, if the programmers of
    around 70% of classic VB apps never wrote a class, i.e. to them OOP
    was about as interesting and useful as a chocolate dildo, how do the
    ..Netizens imagine that these programmers will suddenly see the light
    and start doing everything in OOP? It ain't gonna happen!

    MM

  7. #22
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: Speaking of strings...

    On Mon, 07 Oct 2002 12:45:04 -0500, Paul Clement
    <UseAdddressAtEndofMessage@swspectrum.com> wrote:

    > Why? What is wrong with functions like Left$, Trim$ etc?
    >
    >Nothing. They're still there if you want to use them as you have before. In, addition they've been
    >methods of a class since VBA has been around so this isn't new in VB.NET. The fact that they are
    >also know as functions is meaningless in this context.


    But why is a VB.Net string an object now? What was wrong with
    traditional VB strings?

    > Or use a function. Again, why is a String now an object? Why?
    >
    >All data types are objects. Why is this a problem for you?


    It's no good just telling me they're objects! I know that. My question
    is, why? Specifically, a string: - why does it need to be an object
    now? It never used to be. That is the problem. A VB/QuickBASIC string
    has been since like forever just a sequence of bytes with a string
    descriptor telling B.A.S.I.C. where it is and how long. Why change it?
    What's the advantage now?

    MM

  8. #23
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: Speaking of strings...

    On Mon, 7 Oct 2002 19:06:20 +0100, "Kunle Odutola"
    <kunle.odutola@<REMOVETHIS>okocha.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

    >Mike Mitchell wrote:
    >
    >> Why? What is wrong with functions like Left$, Trim$ etc?

    >
    >Nothing. They still exist AFAIK.


    So, if there's nothing wrong with functions, why introduce methods?
    Why make strings objects? Why? What's the point?

    >>> These are common methods
    >>> mind you, used regularly, so it makes sense to have them as methods
    >>> on the class.

    >>
    >> Why? What is better about a method than a function? Why?

    >
    >It is intuitively linked to the type (and data) it operates on. Given an
    >instance of a String for instance, the IDE can prompt you about all sorts of
    >things you can do with it or to it.......more productive than scouring the
    >help pages for functions that can be applied to strings.


    What is the advantage of it being intuitively linked? Is it only so
    that the IDE can prompt me? Surely that is overkill, since I didn't
    forget Left$ or Mid$ in classic VB/QuickBASIC after using them a few
    times. Likely as not, I wouldn't forget a method call either. And, in
    fact, sometimes Intellisense is a pain in the butt when it keeps
    popping up even though I know *exactly* what I want to type next. So
    is there no other advantage why a string now has to be an object?

    >> Again, why is a String now an object? Why?

    >
    >A String is a datatype. All datatypes in .NET are objects (or can be treated
    >as such).


    This is what LFS said, too! I *know* they're objects, but the question
    is, why? What's the point?

    >HTH!


    Well, it didn't!

    MM

  9. #24
    james Guest

    Re: Speaking of strings...

    No need to rewrite existing code libraries. Keep them in VB6 and use them
    there. Do new development in VB.NET. To me, that makes the best sense of
    all possibilities. As for improved productivity for developers, that
    should come from learning and using VB.NET and the improvements the
    Framework brings to programming for Windows. In other words,
    use the right tool for the right job.
    james


    "Mike Mitchell" <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:2en3qu8iqdlrvcfad6k697h8ff2j8sila3@4ax.com...
    > On Mon, 7 Oct 2002 18:00:40 +0100, "Jonathan West" <jwest@mvps.org>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >One of the main complaints coming from Dan and others was that the

    language
    > >changes effectively prohibit the re-use of such code developed in earlier
    > >versions of VB. Since most of the syntax changes were not necessary for

    the
    > >purpose of making the language more OO, it seems to me that it is a valid
    > >question whether the sum total of the changes between VB6 and VB.NET have
    > >improved productivity for developers or teams extending existing
    > >applications or in possession of substantial VB6 code libraries.

    >
    > I'm still waiting for the .Netizens to define and quantify their
    > so-called improved productivity. (They drove that other thread
    > specifically about productivity off into never-never land.) Beats me
    > how it can be more productive to have to rewrite maybe millions of
    > lines of perfectly working code in order to then see greater
    > productivity in .Net. As for OOP in VB.Net, if the programmers of
    > around 70% of classic VB apps never wrote a class, i.e. to them OOP
    > was about as interesting and useful as a chocolate dildo, how do the
    > .Netizens imagine that these programmers will suddenly see the light
    > and start doing everything in OOP? It ain't gonna happen!
    >
    > MM




  10. #25
    W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD Guest

    Re: Speaking of strings...

    In article <3da1b1c5@10.1.10.29>,
    "Larry Serflaten" <serflaten@usinternet.com> writes:

    > "W.E. (Bill) Goodrich,


    > > > > >Wise up Mike. OOP is here to stay.


    > > LOL!!! Are you really THAT naive? That would help explain a lot.


    > Your links explained a lot about how you think as well.


    Not in the way you think. They merely point to areas of discontent,
    similar to the pattern which brought about the downfall of the
    academic fad of Strict Structured Programming.

    > Of the 4 you posted only 1 was from a (outdated) source most would
    > consider reputable:


    > > http://iraf.noao.edu/iraf/web/ADASS/.../cogginsj.html


    Which you missed the significance of (big surprise). Coggins went on
    to become one of the advocates of The Next Big Thing In Computer
    Science: Aspect Oriented Programming (AOP). And since you are so
    found of posting searches:

    http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/cs?q=aop&...Documents&cs=1

    ALL from "reputable sources" by your apparent standards. It is clear
    that OOP is now going through exactly the same process that destroyed
    the prominence of Strict Structured Programming. As is so often the
    case, history is repeating itself. And to cite an old saw: those who
    fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. Your
    precious OOP is not "here to stay" - it is already on its way out.
    What are you doing to leave that outdated fad behind and move on to
    the more modern AOP? Do you even have any concept what AOP is? How
    much time are you spending toward the mastery of the newer AO
    languages?

    I watched Strict Structured Programming - and its obnoxiously self
    righteous acolytes - go down the same drain that yawns before OOP (and
    its similar supporters). Your sad little claim that "OOP is here to
    stay" would seem to tell us a lot about how you think, and where you
    are headed.

    And throughout all the fads, the time honored principles of modular
    programming have (when applied) lead to code which is more secure,
    more readable and maintainable, and generally more efficient and
    effective than that of the fad approaches.

    [...]

    > "OOP will not make developing your first project faster, nor your
    > second. But with a good strategic core class library, later
    > applications within the same family will be developed quicker and
    > more reliably."


    Interesting that you leave out the part where he acknowledged that the
    same could have been said of "traditional procedure libraries" as well.

    And as Jonathan pointed out, the loudest complaint about VB.NET is the
    extent to which it negatively impacts such libraries. And the
    precedent for Micro$oft following the same destructive pattern in the
    future.

    --

    W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD

    *-----------------------*--------------------------------------------*
    * CHANGE YOUR SEXUALITY * http://www.nyx.net/~bgoodric/ctg.html *
    * * *
    * Without Aversive * ctgcentral@earthlink.net *
    * Behavior Modification * Creative Technology Group *
    * or Drugs * PO Box 286 *
    * * Englewood, CO 80151-0286 *
    *-----------------------*--------------------------------------------*

  11. #26
    Larry Serflaten Guest

    Re: Speaking of strings...

    "W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD" <bgoodric@netzero.net> wrote
    >
    > > > > > >Wise up Mike. OOP is here to stay.

    >
    > And as Jonathan pointed out, the loudest complaint about VB.NET is the
    > extent to which it negatively impacts such libraries.


    I wasn't responding to any of that, Mike asked about strings, and such is the
    name of the subject.

    LFS



  12. #27
    Rune Bivrin Guest

    Re: Speaking of strings...

    "W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD" <bgoodric@netzero.net> wrote in
    news:3DA1F8EE.377497A5@netzero.net:

    [...]
    >
    > Which you missed the significance of (big surprise). Coggins went on
    > to become one of the advocates of The Next Big Thing In Computer
    > Science: Aspect Oriented Programming (AOP). And since you are so
    > found of posting searches:
    >
    > http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/cs?q=aop&...Documents&cs=1
    >
    > ALL from "reputable sources" by your apparent standards. It is clear
    > that OOP is now going through exactly the same process that destroyed
    > the prominence of Strict Structured Programming. As is so often the
    > case, history is repeating itself. And to cite an old saw: those who
    > fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. Your
    > precious OOP is not "here to stay" - it is already on its way out.
    > What are you doing to leave that outdated fad behind and move on to
    > the more modern AOP? Do you even have any concept what AOP is? How
    > much time are you spending toward the mastery of the newer AO
    > languages?
    >
    > I watched Strict Structured Programming - and its obnoxiously self
    > righteous acolytes - go down the same drain that yawns before OOP (and
    > its similar supporters). Your sad little claim that "OOP is here to
    > stay" would seem to tell us a lot about how you think, and where you
    > are headed.
    >
    > And throughout all the fads, the time honored principles of modular
    > programming have (when applied) lead to code which is more secure,
    > more readable and maintainable, and generally more efficient and
    > effective than that of the fad approaches.
    >

    Then what evidence is there to contradict that both AOP and MP are not
    just fads too, albeit in different phases of fad-ness and with varying
    fad longevity?
    Indeed, what reason is there to apply any kind of methodology or
    programming modality at all, if all you can be sure of is the demise of
    the principles?
    I can't but hear faint echoes of the criticism raised by Newtonian
    physicists against the theory of relativity. Or the criticism raised by
    Einstein against quantum physics. Yet all three of them represent views
    of nature that are valid for solving a certain domain of problems, but
    inappropriate for others.

    With regard to "obnoxiously self righteous acolytes": Pot, kettle, black?

    --
    Rune Bivrin
    - OOP since 1989
    - SQL Server since 1990
    - VB since 1991

  13. #28
    Jay Glynn Guest

    Re: Speaking of strings...

    <snip>
    >
    > http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/cs?q=aop&...Documents&cs=1
    >
    > ALL from "reputable sources" by your apparent standards. It is clear
    > that OOP is now going through exactly the same process that destroyed
    > the prominence of Strict Structured Programming. As is so often the
    > case, history is repeating itself. And to cite an old saw: those who
    > fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. Your
    > precious OOP is not "here to stay" - it is already on its way out.
    > What are you doing to leave that outdated fad behind and move on to
    > the more modern AOP? Do you even have any concept what AOP is? How
    > much time are you spending toward the mastery of the newer AO
    > languages?
    >


    I'm not so sure that AOP is here to *replace* OOP but maybe to *enhance* it.
    One of the nice things about AOP is that it is supposed to work with
    structured as well as OOP based methodologies. Most of the current work
    seems to be geared towards OOP at this time. Your own cite pretty much seems
    to validate that point. A quick look at the current tools available also
    seem to validate it as well.

    http://www.aosd.net/tools.html

    Most seem to be based upon Java, but there are a couple related to Smalltalk
    and even a C# entry in the list. I'm sure this isn't the only list and that
    these are not the only tools, but the pattern seems clear.

    I'm sure you would like OOP to disappear into the sunset for whatever
    reasons you may have, but it is only one of many methods to develop
    software. Sometimes it is the best method, other times other methods are
    better suited.

    Jay



  14. #29
    Kunle Odutola Guest

    Re: Speaking of strings...

    W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD wrote:

    > Which you missed the significance of (big surprise). Coggins went on
    > to become one of the advocates of The Next Big Thing In Computer
    > Science: Aspect Oriented Programming (AOP).


    Bill, AOP piggy-backs on existing methodologies including OOP. It does not
    replace them. Most AOP implementations have been extensions to OOP languages
    such as Java and Smalltalk.

    Kunle


  15. #30
    Rune Bivrin Guest

    Re: Speaking of strings...

    Mike Mitchell <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
    news:eho3qu03pv46msn005h3s4lmos7vd4767b@4ax.com:

    >>
    >>It is intuitively linked to the type (and data) it operates on. Given
    >>an instance of a String for instance, the IDE can prompt you about all
    >>sorts of things you can do with it or to it.......more productive than
    >>scouring the help pages for functions that can be applied to strings.

    >
    > What is the advantage of it being intuitively linked? Is it only so
    > that the IDE can prompt me? Surely that is overkill, since I didn't
    > forget Left$ or Mid$ in classic VB/QuickBASIC after using them a few
    > times. Likely as not, I wouldn't forget a method call either. And, in
    > fact, sometimes Intellisense is a pain in the butt when it keeps
    > popping up even though I know *exactly* what I want to type next. So
    > is there no other advantage why a string now has to be an object?
    >

    On occasions, there have been questions raised by certain members of this
    community whether VB.NET is easier or harder to learn than VB6 for a
    novice. This may be one of the issues that contribute to the answer...

    --
    Rune Bivrin
    - OOP since 1989
    - SQL Server since 1990
    - VB since 1991


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
HTML5 Development Center
 
 
FAQ
Latest Articles
Java
.NET
XML
Database
Enterprise
Questions? Contact us.
C++
Web Development
Wireless
Latest Tips
Open Source


   Development Centers

   -- Android Development Center
   -- Cloud Development Project Center
   -- HTML5 Development Center
   -- Windows Mobile Development Center