Authoritative Viewpoints on OOP

[TI-994A]

These kinds of discussion generally degrade to being a tit-for-tat kind of thing with opinions given more importance than facts. I'll kindly excuse myself from the discussion and let things continue on as they were.

So true; very commendable stance, Demivec.

As for you Ti.., See you around. This is not worth it. You attack everyone and claim they are the ones who have issues.

If you'd like to be treated with respect, try doing the same.

In your first post (link to your post), you claimed that I was trying to be deceptive by citing a quote out of context, when I clearly back-linked the said quote to its original article (link to the quote you were referring to):

You have taken his quote out of context, to make it seem as though he is negative towards oop at any level. That is just wrong.

Then, after I asserted the fact that I did provide the link to the original article for the quote in question, you dug up another quote which I had cited earlier, from a different post in an unrelated thread (link to the second quote you then referred to, from another thread), to justify the bogus claim you had made earlier (link to your post):

If you had actually put links in that post you might not look the fool right now. Did you edit them out for some reason?
Here it is:

Some light reading for the Object-Happy folks... you know who you are...

Who's being deceitful now? You strike and complain of backlash?

Please don't play innocent while accusing others of what you're in fact doing.

[Thorium]

I Call it OOPitis, which is a very similar disease to SQLitis.. Ever notice that the people who are expert SQL programmers couldn't write code for a flat database if their life depended on it? Honestly I think they just find it too difficult in both cases.

We have that problem with many technologys. Another example is XML. Great to store settings and light data. Extremly overused to the point Intel made the string instructions of the SSE 4 instruction set extension specificly to speed up XML parsing. Because it's used by so many programs to store tons of data and get terribly slow because they need to parse the XML's over and over again.

Text based formats in general are a bad idea today. Still the whole web is text based. Fortunatly we are going in a more binary direction with HTTP 2.
They started with text based web because it's easy to type it in by hand and the network was so slow that the parsing didnt made any impact on the overall performance. Today we have extremly high bandwith and litter it with hard to parse text based data.

[the.weavster]

In your first post, you claimed that I was trying to be deceptive by citing a quote out of context, when I clearly back-linked the said quote to its original article

In fact you did both, although you linked to the articles you also quoted out of context.

You also wrote:

vindicating the Fantaisie Team's decision not to implement it as a sound and practical one.

I think you'd already have to be entrenched in a prejudice position to reach that conclusion if you have read the articles in their entirety.

[TI-994A]

Another example is XML. Great to store settings and light data. Extremly overused...

So true; XML's being used almost everywhere. And unfortunately, even by Apple's Interface Builder and Android's Layout Editor. Since my personal preference is to build the UIs programmatically, it would've been great if these tools generated the corresponding code instead; like PureBasic's Form Designer.

In fact you did both, although you linked to the articles you also quoted out of context.

Fair point, weavster. I agree that the excerpts could be misconstrued as being cited out of context, but to be perfectly honest, they weren't meant to. Please let me elaborate.

Lippert's aversion to the OOP model was limited to its use in small-scale projects, suggesting that it was better-suited for large-scale ones. This sentiment is clearly implied in the second statement of the excerpt. The original article does not add any more praise or criticism for the model, besides saying that it may not be suitable for introductory academic courses.

Hickey and Armstrong, on the other hand, seem to have issues specifically with the reusability aspects of the OOP model. This too is clearly evident from the respective excerpts, and remains contextually sound even when reading the original articles in their entirety. No positive conclusion could be drawn from them regarding the model as a whole.

So, nothing was actually quoted out of context. Furthermore, the intention was simply to debunk it as a silver bullet, and not as a witch-hunt.

...you'd already have to be entrenched in a prejudice position to reach that conclusion if you have read the articles in their entirety.

I would have to respectfully argue otherwise. Many have bought into this silver-bullet idea without knowing the ins and outs of the OOP model, and I believe that while these articles do not impugn its benefits, they also don't extol it.

On that basis alone, I feel that the PureBasic Team's decision not to implement the OOP model is a rational one.

[User_Russian]

Guys, what do you write? Why deny OOP? You have never had tasks that are easier to implement using OOP?
The programmer must decide how best to implement the task. With OOP or procedural programming. But PB unfortunately does not offer this choice due to lack of support OOP.
If you refuse from the OOP. So let us also renounce support for dynamic arrays and linked lists in structures and string variables. They are not needed, because you can work directly with memory. But will it be convenient? Refusing to OOP, you are depriving yourself of a convenient tool, which facilitates the implementation of certain tasks.
It is unfortunate that Fred and the team refuses to add OOP in PB.

[TI-994A]

If you refuse from the OOP. So let us also renounce support for dynamic arrays and linked lists in structures and string variables. They are not needed, because you can work directly with memory.

Of course you can; and you could also simply write code in binary.

You're comparing core functions and structures to a programming model; apples and oranges.

Refusing to OOP, you are depriving yourself of a convenient tool, which facilitates the implementation of certain tasks.

But so would the functional model, and the declarative model, and even the reactive model.

Wouldn't be feasible to implement them all.

[Dude]

I went to KFC the other and while eating my chicken, I tried convincing the manager that the store would be so much better if it also sold Sushi. I told him over and over again that Sushi is great and would bring his store more business, and would make it more popular, and make it more respected in the restaurant industry. But no matter what I said, he said they just serve chicken and they're getting along just fine. Damn him. My friends keep telling me just to go to a Sushi restaurant if I wanted it that badly, but I'd rather just keep eating at KFC and keep trying to convince them to sell Sushi as well. One day they'll listen, because I know what's best for their company.

[Alex777]

I went to KFC the other and while eating my chicken, I tried convincing the manager that the store would be so much better if it also sold Sushi. I told him over and over again that Sushi is great and would bring his store more business, and would make it more popular, and make it more respected in the restaurant industry. But no matter what I said, he said they just serve chicken and they're getting along just fine. Damn him. My friends keep telling me just to go to a Sushi restaurant if I wanted it that badly, but I'd rather just keep eating at KFC and keep trying to convince them to sell Sushi as well. One day they'll listen, because I know what's best for their company.

[Danilo]

Everybody knows that this is the wrong place to get Sushi, because the owner already stated his viewpoint (aversion against anything fish).
In this discussion, we are talking about the 'Authoritative Viewpoints' that Sushi is very bad, while many people outside of this restaurant
like Sushi. Some people are chicken-only guys, and they don't allow that other people may like Sushi, too. Either you are a chicken guy,
or you shut up and get forced to change your opinion and taste. Sushi is very bad for your health! Talking about Sushi not allowed here!
Reminds me of my nation's history, somehow.
Same with feature requests in so many forums. There are always close-minded people who refuse anything new - even just talking about new and other things is not allowed.
That was the PowerBasic way, wasn't it? Conform to my opinion or you get kicked!

PS: If you are one of the guys who also likes Sushi, you can find me at the Sushi bar at the other end of the town. I'm there every weekend, and we listen
to SomaFM Groove Salad. Friday evening is always Minimal time. Dance, Electronic, Electronica.
They are currently in the process of expanding the bar, and in a few month it will be an even better place. Sushi bar 2.0
Sushi served free of charge then (including recipe), sponsored on a voluntary basis by the Sushi-likers community.

[TI-994A]

One day they'll listen, because I know what's best for their company.

Nice one, Dude! Nothing like a good analogy to drive the point home.

Everybody knows that this is the wrong place to get Sushi, because the owner already stated his viewpoint...

Yes. They don't serve it here.

In this discussion, we are talking about the 'Authoritative Viewpoints' that Sushi is very bad, while many people outside of this restaurant like Sushi.

No. These are simply viewpoints showing that sushi is not that great; but eat it if you like.

Some people are chicken-only guys, and they don't allow that other people may like Sushi, too.

No. Just because they don't serve it, doesn't mean that they prevent others from liking it.

Either you are a chicken guy, or you shut up and get forced to change your opinion and taste.

No. If you love good chicken, welcome; for other things, go elsewhere. Your choice.

Sushi is very bad for your health! Talking about Sushi not allowed here!

No. Its health benefits aren't really known, and talking about it is definitely allowed. Just don't ask for it.

Same with feature requests in so many forums. There are always close-minded people who refuse anything new - even just talking about new and other things is not allowed.

No. Not in the PureBasic forums.

That was the PowerBasic way, wasn't it? Conform to my opinion or you get kicked!

Yes. But that's not the PureBasic way.

They are currently in the process of expanding the bar, and in a few month it will be an even better place. Sushi bar 2.0. Sushi served free of charge then (including recipe), sponsored on a voluntary basis by the Sushi-likers community.

Yet to be seen. They're supposed to be serving a wide range of sushis, but somehow I feel that their recipes are going to be very fattening. Before you know it, the menu might really dwindle down to just a few items. And don't be surprised if the owner of the bar suddenly decides to call it quits. He's closed down two bars before.

[Danilo]

And don't be surprised if the owner of the bar suddenly decides to call it quits. He's closed down two bars before.

Yep! Many bars closed over the years. That's why community-supported free and open stuff is so appealing,
and people working together to build something for free is nice, too. Like SomaFM, a project relying on community support.

[TI-994A]

That's why community-supported free and open stuff is so appealing, and people working together to build something for free is nice, too.

In an ideal world, perhaps.

The open-source model usually requires the continuous participation of the principal developers in order to succeed. And in order for them to continue participating, they would require continuous funding. And unless the open-source fairy visits them each night with a bag full of money, they'll have to raise it themselves. And if they can't, it's quite unlikely that they'll continue development just for the sake of the community.

After that, unless the community could miraculously rally and organise themselves to take over the development, essentially reviewing, testing, and implementing the continued efforts, the project is only going to be abandoned, or end up as hotchpotch.

Case in point, the MoSync development kit. It was backed by the MySQL founders, and was meant to be an open-source development tool to target multiple mobile platforms, including Windows Phone, iOS, Android, and many more. Initial development was promising, and user-adoption very swift, with numerous apps successfully published on the various app stores.

Unfortunately, after eight years, the project flatlined in 2013 due to bankruptcy, leaving thousands of users in the lurch. The official websites and forums are gone, but the GitHub repository remains, untouched for the last two years, without any community initiative to revive it.

Community-supported and community-run are two different concepts altogether.

At the end of the day, open-source projects are still reliant on their principal developers.

[Danilo]

Well, the world is changing. More and more stuff becomes open-source. Even formerly very expensive 3D engines
are open-source now and free to use for non-commercial developers. If you make money using such projects,
you pay something sometimes - but there are also entirely free-of-charge projects, see Ogre3D.
Visual Studio, Xcode - everything free nowadays. That wasn't always the case, just remember the world 15 years ago.
Many things have changed over the years. Many things. Microsoft puts more and more things at github now.
In the JavaScript and mobile dev-kits world, almost all toolkits are open-source. Some are funded by communities,
some provide optional professional paid support, some provide cloud compilation services, and some are
developed entirely without money by enthusiasts and friends using their free time, etc.

There are probably many, many millions of open-source projects available at github, bitbucket, SourceForge, google code, etc. - especially developer stuff.
The PB community itself, like many other developer communities, makes free and open-source codes/libs every day.

Active, frozen, and dead projects everywhere. If you like, you can pick-up any of those million projects and
contribute or fork it. If nobody does it, it's probably not interesting enough. Maybe there are not enough capable
people in a specific community that would be able to continue the project. There are many reasons that some
projects die. Commercial closed-source products, and same with free open source projects.

The PB community seems to be a bit shy picking up open-source codes/libs, changing it and adapting it
to new versions. At least that's my feeling when releasing a lib as source. Most people here seem to
think the original author should care about it forever. and only very few people have the heart to do
adaptations and extentions.

For financing, Kickstarter, Patreon, Paypal donations/subscriptions etc. changed the world. Looks like community-supported,
on a voluntary basis, financing is hot at this times. Seems to work for many projects, and the community has
some influence where the project/product is going. Wrong direction, no more support...

I find sending t-shirts, mugs, hoodies, and CD's very appealing in return to donations. You get something
for the money (althought I wouldn't expect any thing in return, for a donation), and at the same time you advertise
when wearing a t-shirt like "Soma FM" / "PureBasic" / "MonkeyX". It's basically fan-articles in return of supporting a thing. Nice.
I'm pretty sure a big coffee mug (black on red, and red on black) with "PureBasic" and the "Z" logo under it (or at opposite side) would be welcome
by many people here, in return to a $60 donation, or something like that. And if you would like to have such a thing as a big coffee mug,
it makes you donating, as a fan of a product - just to get the fan-article.

I guess you don't agree and you will feel the need to correct my opinion and my personal view of the world I'm living in (as you always do). Unfortunately, it doesn't work like that.

[TI-994A]

...formerly very expensive 3D engines are open-source and free to use for non-commercial developers. If you make money using such projects, you pay something sometimes...

Yes, but who enforces the licensing? And to whom do you pay? The principal developers.

...there are also entirely free-of-charge projects, see Ogre3D. Visual Studio, Xcode...

Yes, but they're all still being actively developed.

Some are funded by communities, ... and some are developed entirely without money by enthusiasts and friends using their free time, etc.

Community-funded, yes; but who is being funded? The principal developers. And projects that are developed entirely without money by enthusiasts and friends using their free time, would only apply to amateur hobby-level developments; nothing more.

There are probably many, many millions of open-source projects available at github, bitbucket, SourceForge, google code, etc. - especially developer stuff.

And just as many orphaned and abandoned projects. The active ones continue to be maintained by their principal developers.

The PB community itself ... makes free and open-source codes/libs every day.

Yes, to support the core product, which is still being actively developed by their principal developers. However, libraries and extensions are not the same; they fall under the category of third-party tools. We're discussing core developments.

Active, frozen, and dead projects everywhere. If you like, you can pick-up any of those million projects and contribute or fork it

There would be no sense contributing to orphaned or abandoned projects. And unless there's some trusted body to manage and maintain it as a mainstream implementation, forks are only viable for personal use.

If nobody does it, it's probably not interesting enough. Maybe there are not enough capable people in a specific community that would be able to continue the project. There are many reasons that some projects die.

Even for very interesting and indispensable developments, if the user-base is ill-equipped to carry on the torch, it's a lost cause. The main reason projects die is simply the lack of funding, and community's inability to continue development thereafter.

For financing, Kickstarter, Patreon, Paypal donations etc. changed the world. Looks like community-supported, on a voluntary basis, financing is hot at this time. Seems to work for many projects, and the community has some influence where the project/product is going. Wrong direction, no more support...

Yes, basic crowdfunding seems to be very hot, and that's because the returns are attractive for a one-off contribution. And even that's good only for Series-A; you don't get a second bite at that apple. Patron-based crowdfunding, on the other hand, requires a longer-term commitment and offers less in return. Just compare Kickstarter's $1.5 billion over six years with Patreon's $20 million over two years. That itself speaks volumes to the low potential of the model. After two months, your sushi bar has not even reached a thousand bucks in monthly pledges. Moreover, Patreon pledges can be cancelled at any time, no questions asked. A heart displayed next to your name on some website is clearly not a compelling motivator when soliciting long-term support. Then again, how many coffee mugs or t-shirts could they afford to give away every month?

I guess you don't agree and you will feel the need to correct my opinion and my personal view of the world I'm living in (as you always do).

Why change a winning model.

However, it's not that I don't agree with your opinion; it's just that your opinion is based on very selected case studies, some of which should not even apply. And I'm not saying that my opinions are right either; I'm simply providing some counter-examples to illustrate that the open-source model is not what many believe it to be.

The open-source model is not the developers' gift to the community; it's simply a ploy to avail free labour, to promote adoption, and to popularise the product. And if it ultimately succeeds, they'll design some intricate support-based model to exact commercial gains from the big boys. Which open-source success-story has not done this?

But if it fails, it's hasta la vista, baby!

At the end of the day, it's all about the money for the principal developers; and without them, all that'll be left is a well-organised GitHub page.

[Danilo]

Thank you for your time!