Oo isn't everything
Pike Offer An Analogy AIMED AT Exposing The Weakness of Using Only Oo Methodology in All Cases:
"If you want to make some physical artifact, you might decide to build it purely in wood because you like the way the grain of the wood adds to the beauty of the object. In fact many of the most beautiful things in the world are made of wood But wood is not ideal for everything No amount of beauty of the grain can make wood conduct electricity, or support a skyscraper, or absorb huge amounts of energy without breaking Sometimes you need metal or plastic or synthetic materials;... more often you need a wide range of materials to build something of lasting value. Do not let the fact that you love wood blind you to the problems wood has as a material, or to the possibilities offered by other materials. "" OO is great for problems where an interface applies naturally to a wide range of types, "Pike added," not so good for managing polymorphism (the machinations to get collections into OO languages are astounding to watch and can be hellish to work with), and remarkably ill- Suited for NetWor K Computing. "
"That's why i reserve to the problem, and even - lyte - to coordinate Software Written In Several Languages Towards Solving a Single Problem," He Continued.
