The Joel on Software Discussion Group (CLOSED)

A place to discuss Joel on Software. Now closed.

This community works best when people use their real names. Please register for a free account.

Other Groups:
Joel on Software
Business of Software
Design of Software (CLOSED)
.NET Questions (CLOSED)
TechInterview.org
CityDesk
FogBugz
Fog Creek Copilot


The Old Forum


Your hosts:
Albert D. Kallal
Li-Fan Chen
Stephen Jones

Career Suicide?

Is not learning OO really career suicide?

http://www.sys-con.com/story/storyid=46603&de=1&jdj=on

(Couldn't get this to paste properly. Sorry).

Methinks this is a gross exaggeration from someone trying to sell you OO. There is still tons of work in the COBOL / CICS world, never mind VB6, etc. I guess it depends how you define 'career'...
NetFreak Send private email
Tuesday, October 05, 2004
 
 
No way. In fact I think we're set to see things go somewhat more procedural or at least a hybrid of OO and procedural. OO is too complex and has too much overhead for most small to medium products. Plus with languages like php, python, etc taking off and those languages geared more towards procedural code or hybrid I think the guy is nuts. I've seen lots of code and very little of the OO i've looked at is easier to maintain, more effecient, etc than a well structured procedural codebase.

I guess that said, there is something to concede that non technical folks who have been feed alot of OO crap in the past few years may not realize what's going on or even care.
What to Do?
Tuesday, October 05, 2004
 
 
I tried various combinations of the URL but couldn't find the article. Please post a correction. thanks.
DJ
Tuesday, October 05, 2004
 
 
OO is the panacea of the architect astronauts.  For the masses that just need to get 'er done, proceduralis the way to go in many many cases.
Ram Jam
Tuesday, October 05, 2004
 
 
The problem is that the masses who "just need to get 'er done" are too shortsighted to see where abstraction minimizes their future risk.  "Object-oriented" programming is just one tool of abstraction.
Kalani Send private email
Tuesday, October 05, 2004
 
 
""Object-oriented" programming is just one tool of abstraction"  Certainly.  It is also too complex for most business shops.  Either they need to hire the astronauts, which they won't or they need a language they can manage with.  Even if that means they write code that isn't bullet proof for the next 100 years.  (even though no OO code is either.
Ram Jam
Tuesday, October 05, 2004
 
 
I don't think it is necessary. I remember a job early in my career where I had written a few C programs to essentially call a sybase stored procedure, bind the results and write them to a file. Each of these programms were seperate. Now, I would use the Abstract Factory Design pattern.

But, there are plenty of jobs out there that are tactical and will remain so.
warehouse1990 Send private email
Tuesday, October 05, 2004
 
 
>Even if that means they write code that
>isn't bullet proof for the next 100 years

Strawman
Kalani Send private email
Tuesday, October 05, 2004
 
 
http://www.sys-con.com/story/?storyid=46603&de=1&jdj=on

Oops... nuked the ? somehow. This works.
NetFreak Send private email
Tuesday, October 05, 2004
 
 
Poor code that gets the job done today for the next two years is more important than the perfect code delivered sometime year after next in the business world.  Hence the rise of worse is better i.e. VB.
Ram Jam
Tuesday, October 05, 2004
 
 
>Poor code that gets the job done today for the
>next two years is more important than the perfect
>code delivered sometime year after next in the
>business world.

I completely agree.  On the other hand, poor code that gets the job done today but makes tomorrow's job more difficult might not be the best solution.  The technique has to fit the project (and when the project goes beyond scope, you've got to be able to reevaluate the technique and do something that makes sense given the new project goals).
Kalani Send private email
Tuesday, October 05, 2004
 
 
As far as I could sense from numerous books, both Gates
and Jobs are in love with OO and that's why the world fell
in love with OO 15 years ago.
VPC
Tuesday, October 05, 2004
 
 
We may not think much of VB, I know I sorta look down my nose at it, but there are plenty of add-ons for VB which allow pieces to be joined together for a decent application with very little code.

If I have an app which is 90% user interface, and I can finish it with 100 lines of code that I had to write in VB, well, I think that I have an example of good coding, not bad, especially if the comparison is with a couple thousand lines of C, C++, or Java.
frustrated Send private email
Tuesday, October 05, 2004
 
 
I'd say that not knowning something about OO is career suicide. That includes knowing when not to use it.
Miles Archer
Tuesday, October 05, 2004
 
 
I don't know ANY developer currently working who doesn't grok OOP to some extent. It appears to be a bare minimum credential to work in this field. Anyone I have known who is too clueless to understand the rudiments of object orientation washed out of SW development by the mid-90s. I've known a few like that. The very idea of an object was sort of a brick wall that they wouldn't get past.

Having said that - all of us who work for someone else know that nobody gives a rat's ass whether we understand OOP or whether we understand anything else.

It's current tools, baby. Vendors and their products. Not concepts. Business always takes the position that the person's talent means squat, the only thing that matters is your demonstrated ability to connect CVendorSpecificCrapThing to ICommercialPlatformTurdlyInterface.
Bored Bystander Send private email
Tuesday, October 05, 2004
 
 
I think UML/MDA/OOD/OOA is good but there is no open source initiave to support such things, everybody is trying to make money off of any thing relating to object technology from software to consulting.  I think once people stop thinking dollar-signs, I think it long term UML will appear more in software development.
Berlin Brown Send private email
Tuesday, October 05, 2004
 
 
I will think that OO is a nice way to achieve low coupling and high cohesion, even if you using procedure lanuguage without OO support like interface and inheriance, you can still apply the concept from OO pattern to help you to design better software.
Carfield Yim Send private email
Wednesday, October 06, 2004
 
 
Highly skilled programmers with procedural skills will command high salaries. Mediocre or inexperienced programmers without OO skills will find it hard to get a job.

Personally I couldn't tolerate working in a non-object orientated language ever again. It'd be like deciding to crawl everywhere.
Mr Jack
Wednesday, October 06, 2004
 
 
I agree with the last 2 posts.

One rule I've noticed that never changes is that things will change.

When I write cron jobs I don't use shell scripts. I use Perl with Perl modules. Of course I still use one-liners in shell when warranted.

An earlier posted mentioned PHP as if it supported less OO. The whole movement in PHP is to give it better OO support. The last 3 years 90% of my work has been in PHP. I cringe when I see some of the code I have to fix. Horrendous. I've seen some horrendous OO code as well but less.
me
Wednesday, October 06, 2004
 
 

This topic is archived. No further replies will be accepted.

Other recent topics Other recent topics
 
Powered by FogBugz