User talk:Aredridel

You added a POV tag to a section on the Metaobject article. There was nothing POV in that section that I can see. As far as I can see all the questions in the Talk section have been addressed. Clearly there is a lot more that can be done to expand the article but I can't see one specific example of a POV statement in it as it currently stands. If you disagree please reply here or on my talk page or on the talk page of the article and give one SPECIFIC statement (i.e., give a quote of the existing text) that you think is POV and why you think that. If you read the metaobject section in Goldberg's Smalltalk book or Kizcales's book everything in that section is right from them. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 16:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "The metaobject protocol violates one of the standards for a good object-oriented system. It reveals and allows a system to modify the internal structure of the objects. For this reason it is usually used sparingly and for special circumstances such as software that transforms other software, for example for reverse engineering.[3]" is quite the value judgement, and there are a great many differing opinions in research on what 'good' object-oriented systems are.
 * I agree that statement needs to be changed. I think a better approach then just slapping a POV tag on it is to work out a better way to say it -- or just remove it if we can't agree on it. I think the general point is clearly true. Using the meta-object protocol violates the "closed" part of Bertrand Meyer's Open-close principle. Do you disagree with that? But going so far as to say it's a "bad OO system" is too strong since obviously the metaobject protocol wouldn't be there if it wasn't appropriate to use at some points and it can be incredibly powerful for certain applications. Now that I understand your point better I will undo my change and leave the tag there for now.--MadScientistX11 (talk) 17:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Aredridel