[aosd-discuss] "AOP Considered Harmful"

[Constantinos Constantinides]

Dear Mira,

Please see my comments below:

>In this sense, I am merely questioning whether the "AOP considered harmful"
>paper or the "AOP strongly depends on tools"-concern expressed by Max are
>posing the right questions in the right way.

I am not sure which paper you are refering to. There are two "AOP considered..."
papers. There's one that Max Stoerzer, Theo Skotiniotis and myself have
co-authored, and there's another one which I have not read, written by someone
I have never spoken to, which apparently references our paper, while as I
understand is making some claims against AOP and as I see it sells for US$249.
That's 309 CAN$. A lot of money for 5 pages.

On the other hand, our paper is 2 pages and it is free :) You may download it
from my web site:
http://www.cs.concordia.ca/~cc/papers/constantinides04aop.pdf

I fully agree with both of your points: (1) asking the right questions, and (2)
in the right way. The "way" in which we asked our questions in the paper was
meant to play devil's advocate. So provided you are referring to our paper,
please take both points into consideration to keep things in context.

In the same context I would ask the same questions all over again. But in class,
when students ask me these questions, I give them the answers that many people
have already given in this forum, concentrating on the tradeoffs provided from
the increased modularization of concerns.

On the positive side, the paper has far exceeded the expectations of the EIWAS
2004 Workshop organizers and has stirred more controvercy than it initially
intended, even though we had to wait for Slashdot.Org to initiate that.

Best regards,
Constantinos

--
Constantinos Constantinides
Computer Science and Software Engineering
Concordia University
+1 514 848.2424 Ext.5374
cc at cs.concordia.ca
www.cs.concordia.ca/~cc