Hi Claire! You removed the "Criticism" section from the LSP article. (I wrote that section.) Your motivation for removing it is that the cited works do not make the stated claims. But does Leavens et al. not write "The LSP as originally stated is actually too strong" and "the LSP is not easy to apply to imperative OO languages. It is not clear what it means to substitute one object for another"?
In any case, is the criticism I wrote not accurate? Do you not agree that substitutability is poor and misleading terminology for talking about modular reasoning about programs involving dynamic binding? Should there, then, not be something in this article warning readers about this?
Best, Bart Jacobs (Leuven) ( talk) 04:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi Claire! You removed the "Criticism" section from the LSP article. (I wrote that section.) Your motivation for removing it is that the cited works do not make the stated claims. But does Leavens et al. not write "The LSP as originally stated is actually too strong" and "the LSP is not easy to apply to imperative OO languages. It is not clear what it means to substitute one object for another"?
In any case, is the criticism I wrote not accurate? Do you not agree that substitutability is poor and misleading terminology for talking about modular reasoning about programs involving dynamic binding? Should there, then, not be something in this article warning readers about this?
Best, Bart Jacobs (Leuven) ( talk) 04:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC)