From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 109fba,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: fac41,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 11cae8,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid11cae8,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public From: Ahmed Subject: Re: What is wrong with OO ? Date: 1996/12/04 Message-ID: <32A59FE9.2667@shef.ac.uk>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 202321412 references: <32A4659D.347A@shef.ac.uk> <32A47B95.393F@iconcomp.com> content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii organization: Computer Science, University of Sheffield , UK mime-version: 1.0 newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.lnag.java,comp.object,comp.software-eng x-mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win16; I) Date: 1996-12-04T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Bill Gooch wrote: > > Ahmed wrote: > > .... > > Object Oriented Technology came with quite promising claims that if achieved can benefit the software > > development companies and organisations millions of pounds. > > > > Some of these claims for instance > > 1 - high reusability of objects and frameworks > > While this may be claimed about specific frameworks, it is > not IMO a valid generalization about OOT. It is feasible > and important to design and implement objects which achieve > immediate *reuse*, general *reusability* is quite rare, and > exceedingly difficult to achieve, IME. Typically the costs > outweigh the benefits. > > To be clear what I mean by "immediate reuse" - it is most > often fine-grained (method and protocol level) reuse of > behavior via inheritance, delegation, etc. which is readily > achievable and most important. Medium-grained (class level) > reuse is also feasible, although it requires greater design > effort and foresight (and/or prior experience in the domain). > Large-grained (framework level) reuse is much harder (I think > somewhat exponentially with the number of classes/protocols/ > relationships involved), and much more rarely achieved. > Actually immediat reuse can be acheived to a certain extent with the traditional structural methods if they adopted a good design What I understand from this is that it is not convinient to reuse objects of other applications because they are built with different perspectives.. Does this mean,If two organizations developed almost typical applications does not mean that the objects developed can be reusable between them.. Is not this a deficiency in OO. Every programmer is tackling the same problem using his own perception of the problem..his own abstraction.. The concept behind OO is that it deals with peices of software as tangible objects exactly as real world works..however in real world every object has a clear behaviour and perception by every body, while in the OO software each object has a behaviour according to the perception of his designer..!! The problem is that many organization avoid moving toword OO because the transfter cost to OO ( training programmers / organization change in standards / new tools / new analysis and design methods / legacy system/ etc. ) are much higher than the benifit of "immediate reuse" Another point regarding inheritance, we know that Visiual Basic does not have the capability of inheritance, however you can build a system much faster compared to using visiual C++ with much less code. I am not saying that we should move to the traditional structural methods No, I have suffered enough from it, I actually like OO because of its strong features..But I want to know why it is not moving so fast.. Regardless of the huge amout of push it got by the major players in the software industry..I believe that OO is still not mature enough in certain aspects. and this is what I am trying to find.. Cheers Ahmed > > -- > William D. Gooch bill@iconcomp.com > Icon Computing http://www.iconcomp.com > Texas liaison for the International Programmers Guild > For IPG info, see http://www.ipgnet.com/ipghome.htm