Wednesday, May 21, 2014

Object Oriented mania

Why is Object Oriented way of programming such a mantra everyone chants and has been chanting for the whole generation? What is it about encapsulation/data hiding, inheritance, polymorphism that makes the code better than otherwise well written "regular" code?

In case you caught on the "well written" qualifier above and want to say that people cant be relied on to write good code then think about it. Can the people be then trusted to write object oriented code?

The truth that everyone knows is that you can write gibberish in any language.

The more complex a language, more scope there is for a language genius with bad hygiene and civic consideration to screw things up bigtime for the rest of us

Then why do we toot the object oriented horn.

I mean, take a look at the object oriented languages today. They now have things growing out of their ears. Lambdas. New for loops. Were you losing it over temporaries? They fixed it and not worry about your next series of job interviews, grappling with double reference syntaxes. Templates not good enough? Now, learn to keep your big mouth shut please

How about fixing simple stuff. Convert string to upper in C++. Tough luck. You are short-changed in these little places these pesky little shoe-bites

You wanted object oriented? Now eat this: language-assisted decorators. Closures. Heck, I dont even want to go there

We have functions calling each other from the middle of their executions, yakking away like two chatty neighbors from their windows. Where is my clean simple old function-call-returns-and-I-resume-my-work paradigm?

It is now possible to know three different OOPS languages and keep abreast of all? Truth is, if I do that, I am not going to be capable of doing much more than that. Give me my C program back. Please?

Thursday, February 20, 2014

Blackboards in the sky?

It is well established that nothing travels faster than light. Yet, there have been explanations for certain things that HAVE travelled faster than light -- that heavenly bodies moved apart from each other because the universe expanded so rapidly..
If such is the case, an object at one time, may give out light from point A, and the light from A will reach us at some time T. How about the object itself? Since it was travelling faster than light, it changed its position even before the light started to travel a short way, and was continuously emitting more light as it travelled. Now, how would that appear to us?
The answer is, it would appear as if someone is using the sky as a blackboard, and writing something on it. That is, IF we were watching at precisely the moment T. If not, we would see the blackboard AFTER it had been written on, and if we watch after some more time, we might catch the line on the blackboard as it is being erased. In any case, it would seem like a phenomenal sight to see
Then why dont we (I mean hubble etc) see these?
I would say it is because the "big bang" explosion happened more than 13 Bn years ago, and in this time we have reached so far from the original point, that the writings on the blackboard are too small for our telescopes to see
It could get interesting, if and when they put something else out there more capable..