All the AOP crowd are saying is that there is this class of problems, that can often be identified by the fact that the code for the solution is or could be in every freakin’ class in existance (or more then a few anyways). And here is this other way to implement the solution that is easier to maintain. A hard problem is still hard, but when you figure out a better solution to your hard problem it is easier to get the changes everywhere.

As to your comment about “aspects need to know an awful lot about what they’re aspecting, and collaborate fairly closely with the targets.” I say yes and no.

I think you are making the mistake of thinking that the code that says where an aspect applies is part of the aspect. In my opinion, it isn’t. Many (dare I say most) aspects should be able to be written in a general manner. Then the person using the aspect, who has more then a passing familiarity with the code the aspects are being applied to I hope, would write the binding bit.

At the same time, I am sure there will be many very specialized aspects developed (not just six like there is in AO) that need to know a lot about what they are aspecting. And a whole host of others that will be poorly written and proped up by needing more info about the code they are aspecting then should be required.

I am talking about the other one.

I went the the TB, like Cameron suggested, and all I saw was that upper-lipless jackass Russell Beatoff wearing a sweater around his waste like some ivy-league wanna-be hanging out with a bunch of miscreants wearing “Mobile Geeks Rule” t-shirts.

And there wasn’t a single LuftHani uniform to be seen.

WTF? Was I too early? Perhaps I should head back out.

And is it me, or is that one Hostess smoking hot?

Damn you. If you don’t need to, what does programming mean?

Oh, I see…. they pulled the P away from AOP so you think AOP does not need such thing at all.

Hope somebody comes with an alternative to AOP for the problem whatever this is trying to solve.