[閒聊] 轉貼一篇評論物件導向的國外文章

看板C_and_CPP (C/C++)作者purpose (purpose)時間15年前 (2010/09/29 11:56)推噓7(7推 0噓 21→)

留言28則, 9人參與討論串1/1

原文網址： http://coolshell.cn/articles/3036.html 我轉成繁體中文後，節錄前半篇內容於下。 -- 今天在網上看到網頁叫「Object Orientation Isa Hoax」——物件導向是一個騙局， http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ObjectOrientationIsaHoax 標題很有煽動性 (註：該網站上還有一個網頁叫Object Orientation Is Dead)， http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ObjectOrientationIsDead 好吧，打開看看上面有些什麼，發現這個網頁是在收集一些關於「物件導向的反動言論」，沒想到的是，很多言論出自很多大師之口。比如：Alexander Stepanov 和 Bjarne Stroustrup。這些言論挺有意思的，所以，我摘兩段在下面：第一段是Alexander Stepanov的 (不要告訴我你不知道這個人，STL之父，關於他的故事，可以到這裡看看)。 http://www.techcn.com.cn/index.php?doc-view-131345.html 他N年前作過一段採訪，原文在這裡 http://www.stlport.org/resources/StepanovUSA.html (我非常建議大家去讀一下這篇採訪，相當過癮)，譯文在這裡 http://dev.csdn.net/htmls/11/11440.html (不過有地方把原意都譯反了，我重譯了一下)，其中有一個問答被上述的那個物件導向反動言論的網頁收錄了： Question: I think STL and Generic Programming mark a definite departure from the common C++ programming style, which I find is almost completely derived from SmallTalk. Do you agree? 提問：我認為STL和泛型程式設計標誌著非同一般的C++程式設計風格，而這種風格幾乎完全是從 SmallTalk延伸過來的。你同意嗎？ Answer: Yes. STL is not object oriented. I think that object orientedness is almost as much of a hoax as Artificial Intelligence. I have yet to see an interesting piece of code that comes from these OO people. In a sense, I am unfair to AI: I learned a lot of stuff from the MIT AI Lab crowd, they have done some really fundamental work: Bill Gosper's Hakmem is one of the best things for a programmer to read. AI might not have had a serious foundation, but it produced Gosper and Stallman (Emacs), Moses (Macsyma) and Sussman (Scheme, together with Guy Steele). I find OOP technically unsound. It attempts to decompose the world in terms of interfaces that vary on a single type. To deal with the real problems you need multisorted algebras - families of interfaces that span multiple types. I find OOP philosophically unsound. It claims that everything is an object. Even if it is true it is not very interesting - saying that everything is an object is saying nothing at all. I find OOP methodologically wrong. It starts with classes. It is as if mathematicians would start with axioms. You do not start with axioms - you start with proofs. Only when you have found a bunch of related proofs, can you come up with axioms. You end with axioms. The same thing is true in programming: you have to start with interesting algorithms. Only when you understand them well, can you come up with an interface that will let them work. 回答：是的。STL不是物件導向的。我認為物件導向和人工智慧差不多，都是個騙局。我至今仍然沒有從那些寫OO的人那裡看到一丁點有意思的程式碼。從某種意義上來說，我這麼說對人工智慧（AI）並不公平：因為我聽說過很多 MIT AI 實驗室裡一幫人搞出來的東西， (I learned a lot of stuff from the MIT AI Lab crowd,) 而且他們的確直正幹了一些基礎性的工作： (they have done some really fundamental work:) Bill Gosper 的 Hakmem 是程式設計師最好的讀物之一。 AI 或許沒有一個實實在在的基礎， (AI might not have had a serious foundation,) 但它造就了 Gosper 和 Stallman（Emacs），Moses（Macsyma）和 Sussman (Scheme，和 Guy Steele 一起)。 * 我發現 OOP 在技術上是荒謬的，它企圖把事物按照不同單個型態的介面來解構，為了處理實際問題，你需要多種代數方法——橫跨多種型態的介面族； (I find OOP technically unsound. It attempts to decompose the world in terms of interfaces that vary on a single type. To deal with the real problems you need multisorted algebras - families of interfaces that span multiple types.) * 我發現 OOP 在哲學上是荒謬的，它聲稱一切都是物件。即使這是真的也不是很有趣——因為說一切都是物件跟什麼都沒說一樣； * 我發現 OOP 的方法論是錯誤的，它從類別開始，就好像數學要從公理開始一樣。你不從公理開始，你就要從證明開始。直到你找到了一大堆相關證據後你才能歸納出公理 (axioms)，然後以公理結束。在程式設計方面存在著同樣的事實：你要從有趣的演算法開始。只有很好地理解了演算法，你才有可能提煉出介面以讓其工作。下面，我們再來看 C++ 的發明者 Bjarne Stroustrup，在1998年 IEEE 採訪時的一段話（全篇見這裡）， http://www2.research.att.com/~bs/ieee_interview.html 下面是其中的幾段話：（我的翻譯如下） .....後半篇略，有興趣可至原文網址觀看。 -- ※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 124.8.130.150

推

loveme00835

09/29 12:45, , 1^F

09/29 12:45, 1^F

→

loveme00835

09/29 12:46, , 2^F

09/29 12:46, 2^F

→

loveme00835

09/29 12:46, , 3^F

09/29 12:46, 3^F