Copyright © 2004 Gene Michael Stover. All rights reserved. Permission to copy, store, & view this document unmodified & in its entirety is granted.
Under construction! In the very very early phase of construction! These are my stream-of-consciousness notes for an idea for an article. Some day, this may become an article, but it isn't fit for human consuption yet.
Is OO overkill?
Is it possible that most of the benefits from OOP come from a handful of standardized classes? Those classes would be lists, dictionaries, & maybe some kind of system of tying some data with a function.
I am as productive with some non-object-oriented languages as with fully object-oriented ones. I mean I'm as productive with Perl & Lisp. Could it be because they have lists & dictionaries? (Yes, both Perl & Lisp have object-oriented libraries, but the languages themselves are not object-oriented, & I rarely use or need the object-oriented extensions of those languages.)
Some programming styles with plain C or other non-object-oriented are as convenient as with object-oriented languages. I'm thinking of writing filters in C. Because of the filter nature of the program, you have two lists, one for input & one for output, managed by the operating system. That is often sufficient for many programs, & when it is, it's easy to write the program.