Content deleted Content added
→History: Removed "as it is the most widely known AOP language", as it has lacked a requested citation for 8 years. Also removed duplicate link – there is a link to AspectJ in the paragraph right before. |
m →Criticism: Added two words for readability. |
||
Line 194:
==Criticism==
The most basic criticism of the effect of AOP is that control flow is obscured, and that it is not only worse than the much-maligned [[GOTO]], but is in fact closely analogous to the joke [[COME FROM]] statement. The ''obliviousness of application'', which is fundamental to many definitions of AOP (the code in question has no indication that an advice will be applied, which is specified instead in the pointcut), means that the advice is not visible, in contrast to an explicit method call.<ref name="harmful">"[https://pp.info.uni-karlsruhe.de/uploads/publikationen/constantinides04eiwas.pdf AOP Considered Harmful] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304055622/http://pp.info.uni-karlsruhe.de/uploads/publikationen/constantinides04eiwas.pdf |date=2016-03-04 }}", Constantinos Constantinides, Therapon Skotiniotis, Maximilian Störzer, ''European Interactive Workshop on Aspects in Software'' (EIWAS), Berlin, Germany, September 2004.</ref><ref>[[C2:ComeFrom]]</ref> For example, compare the COME FROM program:<ref name="harmful"/>
<source lang=basic>
5 input x
| |||