"We should ask what we need to do to design well-factored programs that are cohesive without being coupled and then design language features that directly address those organization requirements"
Language designers have been chasing that chimera for decades now. An unfortunate (in my mind at least) side effect has been legions of new programmers that are ready to fight to the death over concepts (separation of presentation and logic being an example) that are implied to be the One True Right Way when in my experience most programming rules should not only be broken on occasion but frequently ignored wholesale.
"rather than thinking that there is this obvious 'metaphor' that naturally leads to well-organized programs."
Herein lies my greatest criticism of OO and it's proponents. There is nothing inherently "obvious" about the metaphor in general and in my opinion adding a layer metaphor on top of an already complex process simply adds further complexity without bringing anything to the table.
Language designers have been chasing that chimera for decades now. An unfortunate (in my mind at least) side effect has been legions of new programmers that are ready to fight to the death over concepts (separation of presentation and logic being an example) that are implied to be the One True Right Way when in my experience most programming rules should not only be broken on occasion but frequently ignored wholesale.
"rather than thinking that there is this obvious 'metaphor' that naturally leads to well-organized programs."
Herein lies my greatest criticism of OO and it's proponents. There is nothing inherently "obvious" about the metaphor in general and in my opinion adding a layer metaphor on top of an already complex process simply adds further complexity without bringing anything to the table.