Real Object Oriented Programmers

Hate all programming languages other than SmalltalkLanguage (which is perfect).
Eschew static type checking (anyone who needs it is an idiot). "Object" is the only type anyone should need.
Eschew public/protected/private distinctions (again, this is a feature for idiots).
Believe automatic garbage collection is a requirement for any serious programming endeavor.
Believe memory usage and run-time speed are immaterial.
Don't write documentation or draw diagrams. (The workings of the system are obvious when one examines the elegant and self-explanatory object models they create.)
Believe that their skills and techniques are the one and only right way to develop complex systems, despite the fact that their preferred tools have completely failed to gain or to maintain widespread acceptance.
Have not created any open-source SoftwareMasterpiece. But they feel superior nevertheless. What about Squeak? // Squeak is a tool, not an app, used by squeak hackers for squeak hackers.

Re: Eschew static type checking

I don't know, there seems to be a TypeWeenie? kind that views OO as an extension of type theory and ADT's.

I don't see functional and static-typing heavily bound.

Now, now... let's not inject reality into a page like this. :) If we exclude the set of SmugLispWeenies from the set of FunctionalWeenies (most of the LISPers only attend services at the church of Church on Christmas and Easter Sunday, and the rest of the time doing obscene and unholy things like setq and rplaca), we have left the MlWeenie?s and the HaskellWeenie?s--both statically typed languages. And both languages have a large subset of the respective communities who are positively in love with the various TypeInference systems that they have been created.

Save for BertrandMeyer (OK, and LucaCardelli, and BenjaminPierce and KimBruce?, etc.), the OO community seems to gravitate towards either DynamicTyping (Smalltalk, Python) or ManifestTyping (C++, Java)

But enough blatant generalizations, overly-broad stereotypes, and other assorted nonsense for an evening. :)

* Eschew public/protected/private distinctions (again, this is a feature for idiots).: Not true! Any Real Object Oriented Programmer loves these tags.

Many RealObjectOrientedProgrammers believe any object should respond to any message sent from any client at any time. Any time you make a method private, it's because you're too lazy or stupid to make it a usable public method.

This really is just a RealSmallTalkProgrammer? page, as already pointed out. And anyway IoLanguage and SelfLanguage are more OO than ST.

CategoryRant