Why is Object Orientation a buzz word?
I had an interview today, and I was asked to explain my technical background. I zipped through and talked about my experience. I talked about my work on web sites, Mozilla and especially XPCOM, but I never once said "object oriented," or "polymorphic," or "encapsulation," or "inheritance." But these things should go without mention... especially when the candidate has spoken of XPCOM.
So, later the interviewer mentioned object orientation in a manner which hinted that he had been expecting to hear those words. I was thinking something like: "christ, if mentioning any variety of COM doesn't count as 'object oriented,' then I don't know what does." Mentioning COM is like mentioning Java. The very next thought that should be triggered in the listener's head should be "Gah!! Too much OOP!" or, alternatively, "Gah!! The wrong way to do OOP!"
That said, I think the interview went well. Much more went on than just our discussion, or lack thereof, object orientation. Such as discussing PHP, MySQL and various web programming techniques.
Another thing mentioned in passing: Agile development. They brought it up as if it were supposed to perk my ears up and cause salivation, much like the Pavlovian bell. While agile is better than some methodologies, I'm sure, methodology is methodology. Methodology is an "ology" like theology, not biology. The former sort of "ologies" are more likely to cause dogmatic thinking than insightful thinking. For crying out loud, agile has a manifesto! That does not bode well. Of course, I've never been on an agile team, so take my words with a grain^H^H^H^H^H few pounds of salt. Check out this for more.
P.S. - Agile's Manifesto does say a lot of nice things. Too bad many movements which start out on the right path get corrupted.
I had an interview today, and I was asked to explain my technical background. I zipped through and talked about my experience. I talked about my work on web sites, Mozilla and especially XPCOM, but I never once said "object oriented," or "polymorphic," or "encapsulation," or "inheritance." But these things should go without mention... especially when the candidate has spoken of XPCOM.
So, later the interviewer mentioned object orientation in a manner which hinted that he had been expecting to hear those words. I was thinking something like: "christ, if mentioning any variety of COM doesn't count as 'object oriented,' then I don't know what does." Mentioning COM is like mentioning Java. The very next thought that should be triggered in the listener's head should be "Gah!! Too much OOP!" or, alternatively, "Gah!! The wrong way to do OOP!"
That said, I think the interview went well. Much more went on than just our discussion, or lack thereof, object orientation. Such as discussing PHP, MySQL and various web programming techniques.
Another thing mentioned in passing: Agile development. They brought it up as if it were supposed to perk my ears up and cause salivation, much like the Pavlovian bell. While agile is better than some methodologies, I'm sure, methodology is methodology. Methodology is an "ology" like theology, not biology. The former sort of "ologies" are more likely to cause dogmatic thinking than insightful thinking. For crying out loud, agile has a manifesto! That does not bode well. Of course, I've never been on an agile team, so take my words with a grain^H^H^H^H^H few pounds of salt. Check out this for more.
P.S. - Agile's Manifesto does say a lot of nice things. Too bad many movements which start out on the right path get corrupted.
No comments:
Post a Comment