Content deleted Content added
Citation bot (talk | contribs) m Removed parameters. | You can use this bot yourself. Report bugs here. | User-activated. |
m Combine two refs to same source, update citation parameters (author names, etc.) |
||
Line 180:
== Comparison to other programming paradigms ==
Aspects emerged from [[object-oriented programming]] and [[computational reflection]]. AOP languages have functionality similar to, but more restricted than [[Metaobject|metaobject protocols]]. Aspects relate closely to programming concepts like [[subjects (programming)|subjects]], [[mixin]]s, and [[delegation (programming)|delegation]]. Other ways to use aspect-oriented programming paradigms include [[Composition Filters]] and the [[Hyper/J|hyperslices]] approach. Since at least the 1970s, developers have been using forms of interception and dispatch-patching that resemble some of the implementation methods for AOP, but these never had the semantics that the crosscutting specifications provide written in one place. {{Citation needed|date=February 2019}}
Designers have considered alternative ways to achieve separation of code, such as [[C Sharp (programming language)|C#]]'s partial types, but such approaches lack a quantification mechanism that allows reaching several join points of the code with one declarative statement.
Line 189:
Programmers need to be able to read code and understand what is happening in order to prevent errors.<ref>[[Edsger Dijkstra]], [http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/ewd02xx/EWD249.PDF ''Notes on Structured Programming''] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061012020239/http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/ewd02xx/EWD249.PDF |date=2006-10-12 }}, pg. 1-2</ref>
Even with proper education, understanding crosscutting concerns can be difficult without proper support for visualizing both static structure and the dynamic flow of a program.<ref
Given the power of AOP, if a programmer makes a logical mistake in expressing crosscutting, it can lead to widespread program failure. Conversely, another programmer may change the join points in a program – e.g., by renaming or moving methods – in ways that the aspect writer did not anticipate, with [[unforeseen consequences]]. One advantage of modularizing crosscutting concerns is enabling one programmer to affect the entire system easily; as a result, such problems present as a conflict over responsibility between two or more developers for a given failure. However, the solution for these problems can be much easier in the presence of AOP, since only the aspect needs to be changed, whereas the corresponding problems without AOP can be much more spread out.
==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{{cn|date=March 2019}}. 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">
<source lang="basic" highlight="4">
5 INPUT X
| |||