RE: framework question

> 
> Charles, you're carrying the snide ball here, buddy.  You 
> just lumped my
> 25 years of multi-language experience into the phrase "old-time hack
> programmer", just because I disagree with your attempt to lump
> procedural application development into OO.  And you call my 
> techniques
> which work just fine in the real world "an improper solution."  My
> software is running in thousands of sites around the world - I guess I
> have a LOT of calls to make to explain to them they've been using an
> improper solution all these years.

Feel free to count 'em up in order of appearance Joe.  Be sure to start with
"Sorry, Marc, but the real world doesn't have the time for OO."  Also, don't
count the SAY IT AIN'T SO JOE because it certainly wasn't intended to be
snide.  I've read your posts, I know what you've done.  I certainly didn't
expect you to answer "Yes".

While I don't have 25 years of experience.  I do have 13 years experience
that I don't particularly care to have lumped into the phrase "modeling
theoretical problems into an elegant solution space"

Don't know what you mean by "your attempt to lump procedural application
development into OO."  Unless you are talking about my comment that OO is
procedural at the method level.  If so I stand by that with the
clarification that I'm not saying every method in a class would be
procedural.  But most certainly are when you define procedural as : "A
programming approach whereby the developer specifies exactly what must be
done and in what sequence."

You're right Joe.  If custnbr = 'XYZ' works in the real world.  But I know
I'm not the only one who would call it a quick hack.  Even if it is just a
temporary quick hack, I've seen way to many permanent hacks that were only
supposed to be temporary. Now trying to maintain them is a nightmare.  


>  
> Oh.  By the way.  I've already designed and developed two successful
> Java-based iSeries products.  In fact, mine was the FIRST Java-based
> commercial product ever released for the iSeries.  I've 
> written books on
> putting JSP front-ends on monolithic code and on using 
> Eclipse, as well
> as one coming out on WDSC.  I have a Webcast coming up on Search400 on
> the topic in a few weeks, and I regularly teach JSP and 
> servlet labs at
> iSeries DevCon.  I don't THINK my only coding criteria is "did I do it
> in RPG".

Was the Java-based commercial product a standard business application?  I
never said RPG was all you could or have done Joe.  But you do seem to feel
pretty strongly that RPG is the only place for business logic.

> 
> On the other hand, YOURS seems to be "if it's not OO, it's bad."  

Nope, never said that.  Never even said that I disagreed with you about RPG
being the place for business logic.  I only disagreed that quick hack in any
language is a bad thing and that adding the ability to give a customer 10%
off anything he hadn't ordered before was intrinsically hard to do in OO. 

>You
> may not believe this, Charles, but OO is just another programming
> technique, neither better nor worse than any other in and of itself.
> There are things OO does well and things it doesn't do well.

I agree that OO is just another programming technique, and yes it is neither
better nor worse than any other in and of itself.

But, I don't think you can draw the line saying procedural for business
logic and OO for presentation (or whatever) so firmly.

Which is fine, we can agree to disagree Joe.  I keep an open mind about it.
Maybe you'll convince me.  

Charles