Linked by Takuya Murata on Tue 18th May 2004 06:26 UTC
My physics teacher likes to say that physics like to make problems they face look like ones that they know how to solve. A simple harmonic oscillation was one he frequently used in class, as is presumably the case in physics in general.
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
This article started out interesting and then in the last paragraph or two went into the weeds.
He first talks about how we should break problems down to it's simpliest components (e.g. his example of harmonics) to solve a problem. Then he states that OOP is impractical because it "cannot be found in everyday lives". Isn't part of OOP to break down a problem to become simplier and modular so that you can use those pieces to solve other "real world" problems as well?
His comments about Concurrency are a little weak since concurrency has always been an issue and has always been addressed. Read more about semaphores and content-switches, mutex etc for more information on this topic.
And the comment I love the most is in the summary. "In other words, this is the core of reasons why script programming; ... are so popular." He alludes to the fact that the reason why scripting languages are so prolific is because languages like C/C++, Java and LISP cannot solve real world (application instead of theory) type of problems. I, on the other hand find the answer to be much, much simplier. It's because those languages are _easy_ to learn and any bill/jane can learn it. But in reality, there is a reason why EBay using Java to run its site and why Microsoft is rewriting large portions of the Windows OS code based to managed .NET code - it's because languages like Java/C# and C/C++ are designed to solve those type of problems, they are not designed for newbies that what to echo "hello world" to the screen.