Update: This article is fron 1999, which I somehow missed, not news by far. Still wrong, even for its time, though.
This really annoys me, the author of the article tries to preach an OO methodology for writing UI. In general, I don't have an issue with that, but his arguments contains this:
Nameclass, objects of which know how to both display and initialize themselves.
I am not sure where to begin. To start with, an entity should not have ties to the UI. Then we have this dream vision about editing a single class, and suddenly all the relveant screen sprout the new field, and we can start working on it. UI doesn't work like this. It doesn't work like this because adding a new field to screen can horribly break the screen. It might push the Ok/Cancel button outside of the visible realm of the screen, it might break the tab order, it will definately break the flow of the screen.
I am all for OO and encapsulation, but this is not a problem that you can generalize.
This just gets better when you keep on reading:
The other bugaboo that I want to put to death is the notion of different views into the same object, usually characterized by the question: "Suppose you need to display this data as a pie chart over here and a grid over there? How can you do this if the object displays itself?"
Now let's get real. How often in your work has this problem actually come up?
Um, all the time? The simplest version is showing items in a list and then in a details view, but I just finished talking about the different views that I present to the various aspects in my systems. Beyond that, I have different views for different screens. In one screen, I am showing an Employee's personal data, in another the Employee's salary data, etc.