Re: OOP and large systems (was: Ada vs C++, ...)

[jls@netcom.COM (Jim Showalter)]

>Ada is not an OOPL in the classic sense, no.  But Ada does allow and
>in fact encourage object-oriented _design_.  Encapsulation (packages),
>information hiding (private types), etc., are part of OOD (and OOPLs).

>In other words, many of the things that make Ada suitable for working
>with/on large, complex systems are those object-oriented techniques which
>the language _does_ support.  Given this, I find the statement that OO
>(analysis? design? programming? all three?) are "largely irrelevant" 
>to the development of large, complex systems somewhat hard to swallow.

My comment was that the so-called "pure" OO might well be largely
irrelevant to such systems. Pure OO encompasses, by what I THINK is
the general definition, not just encapsulation and information hiding
but messages/methods, polymorphism, dynamic binding, and inheritance.
Considering that Ada supports none of these well and yet supports
the engineering of large complex systems quite well, the argument that
pure OO may be largely irrelevant to the construction of such systems
seems valid.

I'm STILL waiting for someone who has actually completed a large complex
system using pure OO to speak up.
-- 
**************** JIM SHOWALTER, jls@netcom.com, (408) 243-0630 ****************
*Proven solutions to software problems. Consulting and training on all aspects*
*of software development. Management/process/methodology. Architecture/design/*
*reuse. Quality/productivity. Risk reduction. EFFECTIVE OO usage. Ada/C++.    *