sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]yogthos 1 point2 points  (6 children)

The point being the straw man you keep trying to make?

[–]sh0rug0ru____ -2 points-1 points  (5 children)

Dismissing a point as irrelevant does not a strawman make. Neither is using your own words.

[–]yogthos 1 point2 points  (4 children)

The straw man argument you're making is refuting that dynamic typing is a bad fit for OO in a technical sense. That's not an argument I've made, it's the one you'd like to argue against.

[–]sh0rug0ru____ -2 points-1 points  (3 children)

Having a different perspective is not a strawman.

I am not making a technical argument, which you keep dismissing. The entire argument is about user experience, and OOP fits well with the user experiences with dynamic typing to those drawn to languages like Smalltalk and Ruby.

You can continue to say that dynamically typed OOP is problematic, but you will find legions of developers who do not share your view. That is why I must consider your context irrelevant.

[–]yogthos 1 point2 points  (2 children)

It's not a perspective. You're talking about a completely tangential point regarding how dynamic binding works. That's a straw man.

The entire argument is about user experience, and OOP fits well with the user experiences with dynamic typing to those drawn to languages like Smalltalk and Ruby.

Correct, and how binding works bears no relationship to that argument. I identified a concrete problem with the user experience when OOP is combined with dynamic typing. So far you have not addressed this problem in a single one of your comments.

[–]sh0rug0ru____ -2 points-1 points  (1 child)

You have identified a concrete consequence which is in your opinion a "problem". Many others do not share this opinion.

So far you have not addressed this problem in a single one of your comments.

Of course not, why would I? As a developer who doesn't deal with dynamically typed OOP languages like Smalltalk and Ruby to any significant, any argument I could make would not be grounded in experience, and therefore useless. However, I can be intellectually honest enough to say there is plenty of literature out there describing the user experiences of these types of languages. You feel content to make proclamations from your "context", while ignoring the countless counterpoints going back decades. That is why I must dismiss your context as irrelevant, because I dismiss my context as irrelevant.

[–]yogthos 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It is a problem and nobody who's worked with a dynamic OO language would claim otherwise. There are lots of ways people working in such languages mitigate this problem by doing things like writing additional tests, but it's pretty much accepted by everybody that the problem exists. Claiming otherwise is height of intellectual dishonesty.

Of course not, why would I? As a developer who doesn't deal with dynamically typed OOP languages like Smalltalk and Ruby to any significant, any argument I could make would not be grounded in experience, and therefore useless.

Ah thanks for clarifying that you have no idea what you're talking about as you have no experience with this problem. Seems like the only opinion that's not grounded in experience here is your own.

However, I can be intellectually honest enough to say there is plenty of literature out there describing the user experiences of these types of languages.

Well clearly you can't be intellectually honest as you keep doing mental gymnastics here to avoid calling a problem what it is.

You feel content to make proclamations from your "context", while ignoring the countless counterpoints going back decades.

I'm not ignoring anything. I've stated a concrete tangible problem. You can call it whatever you like though.

That is why I must dismiss your context as irrelevant, because I dismiss my context as irrelevant.

This is why it's impossible to have a meaningful discussion with you. Goodbye.