From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on
	ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_20 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1
Date: 26 Jan 93 15:32:50 GMT
From: mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (Michael Feldman)
Subject: Re: Why and how do organizations select the OO
Message-ID: <1993Jan26.153250.18892@seas.gwu.edu>
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <1993Jan25.155937.10417@ennews.eas.asu.edu> koehnema@enuxha.eas.asu.
edu (Harry Koehnemann) writes:
>
>Interesting.  I saw the same thing out here.  A friend of mine works at
>a company (also nameless) developing a very large real-time system.  There
>were many variables in this project  - new processor, new language (Ada),
>very large project, drastically reduced cycle time, and new development
>method (OO) - ie. lots of risk.  They had hired a consultant to help in
>specification and design who basically told them that "if you're going to
>use Ada, you have to use OO spec/design"  

This is fascinating, Harry. The received wisdom I seem to be hearing a
lot of seems to use the same words to make a different statement: "If
you're going to use OO spec/design, forget about Ada, because it doesn't
support multiple inheritance." Both statements are BS, of course.
>
>Of course, everyone followed the consultant.  Not because he was right
>(although he may have been), but because I'm sure no one in a decision
>making power really knew any better.  As you say it's kindof like
>religion - like the congregation following the preacher and assuming
>it's his responsibility to get them to heaven.

Amen to that, brother! It has always been thus, though. My sense of deja vu
gets exercised more and more these days. I lived through the 70's, and taught
through the latter half thereof. "Structured programming" was the subject
of a similar religious crusade. "No GOTO's!" "GOTO's!" "Lots of procedures!"
"Procedures are inefficient!" Etc., etc. Eventually our views matured
and the languages and hardware caught up. 

Managers are, by definition, less recently educated than worker-bees, and 
have more at stake, so they seem to be eternally vulnerable to consultants 
and other crusaders. This is not to trash managers - it's in the nature of 
things, I'm afraid. One does wish for a modicum of intellectual honesty,
though. Sigh...
>
>BTW, last I heard it's behind schedule and way over budget - imagine that.

Surprise.

>Too many variables for onw project.

Ah, now maybe we're getting down to the point.

Mike Feldman