Re: Usefulness of OOP (was Is this expected behavior or not)

["Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>]

On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 07:20:39 +0200, J-P. Rosen wrote:

> Just mentionned it to counter those who claim that OOP
> is the universal cure, and that other methods (like good ol' structured
> programming) are just remainings of the past.

Actually both OOA/D and structured programming remain deep in the past as
they share the same principle of designing rather an individual system,
which leads to extremely fragile design. Traditional OOA/D considers the
system composed out of objects collaborating with each other. This is quite
similar to modules of structured approach. The difference is in object
orientation against more loose [almost ad-hoc] procedural decomposition of
classic structured programming.

Both greatly hinder re-use and fail to adapt to the reality of ever
changing requirements. [*]

What is good in OO is more advanced ADT, which supports decomposition in
more general, and thus more stable, terms, e.g. along types and sets of
types (AKA generic programming). It in turn requires more advanced system
of modules to hold ADTs, e.g. Ada's system of packages.

Comparing to decomposition along types and sets of types, traditional OOA/D
and structured programming decompose software along individual
objects/values/routines. Paleolith.

P.S. I don't consider type safety issue because structured programming did
not operate types. It was basically pre-typed = untyped.

----------------------------
* There is a whole "OO religion" teaching that the world indeed consists
out of objects which program design could capture. This in turn would
ensure stability of the design. Utter nonsense, for sure.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de