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: 11cae8,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid11cae8,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: fac41,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public From: Bill Gooch Subject: Re: What is wrong with OO ? Date: 1996/12/04 Message-ID: <32A5F390.2A99@iconcomp.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 202376108 references: <32A4659D.347A@shef.ac.uk> <32A47B95.393F@iconcomp.com> <32A59FE9.2667@shef.ac.uk> to: Ahmed x-rtcode: fa9b696c3279a3db5aa5f1aa content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii organization: Icon Computing mime-version: 1.0 reply-to: bill@iconcomp.com newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.lnag.java,comp.object,comp.software-eng x-mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (WinNT; I) Date: 1996-12-04T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Ahmed wrote: > > Actually immediat reuse can be acheived to a certain extent with > the traditional structural methods if they adopted a good design A key phrase here is "to a certain extent." OO allows more effective reuse (less redundancy, less copy-and-edit) than alternatives. > What I understand from this is that it is not convinient to reuse > objects of other applications because they are built with different > perspectives.. I think "not convenient" is a bit of an understatement - "very difficult" might typically be more accurate. > 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. As compared to what? Non-OO software? I think not. Two different automobile designs rarely share any compatible parts (except those which are industry- standardized, like oil filters), unless the designers worked together with that goal in mind. > Every programmer is tackling the same problem using his own perception > of the problem..his own abstraction.. Yes, and the alternative is?... > The concept behind OO is that it deals with peices of software as > tangible objects exactly as real world works.. Not at all. "How the real world works" is by no means obvious or well understood ("real world" in itself is an exceedingly vague term), and you'd need to provide some definitions of these things, as well as evidence to support the above assertion. > however in real world > every object has a clear behaviour and perception by every body, Not in the slightest. > while in the OO software each object has a behaviour according to > the perception of his designer..!! Sometimes. The designer probably hopes it does. > 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" OK - why is this a problem? > 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. Depends what system, doesn't it? VB isn't ideal for all computer applications; C++ is probably a better choice for at least some of them. > 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.. Patience is a virtue. Rapid growth and early acceptance can lead to backlash and equally rapid decline. -- 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