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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: fac41,b87849933931bc93
X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public
X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,b87849933931bc93
X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public
X-Google-Thread: f43e6,b87849933931bc93
X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,b87849933931bc93
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Thread: 11cae8,b87849933931bc93
X-Google-Attributes: gid11cae8,public
X-Google-Thread: 114809,b87849933931bc93
X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public
X-Google-Thread: 109fba,b87849933931bc93
X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public
From: Tansel Ersavas <tansel@deep.net>
Subject: Re: What is wrong with OO ?
Date: 1996/12/14
Message-ID: <32B38300.596@deep.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 204178199
references: <32A5A86A.1AF1@shef.ac.uk>
 <slrn5aft9g.9ce.harry@matilda.alt.net.au> <32A82932.4A73@mci.com>
 <1996Dec7.151850.877@prim.demon.co.uk> <32AA978F.7D64@deep.net>
 <58v04c$r9l@bagan.srce.hr>
content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
organization: RASE Inc.
mime-version: 1.0
reply-to: tansel@deep.net
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 (Win95; U)
Date: 1996-12-14T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Kazimir Majorinc wrote:

> 
> Unfortunately, OO is based on completely wrong principle. If it succeed, it
> would be on costs which are several times bigger than on procedural paradigm.

Compared to what? Procedure orientation? Can you tell me why we program
in procedures, what is so absolute about it? In fact the biggest mistake
is that we program in procedures. It is one of the biggest problems of
this Century. Please read my prev. postings about what's wrong with
procedure orientation.

> Which does not mean that it will not succeed commercialy.

I wouldn't bet on it.

> One who knows the secret of the 7th stair

But not OO


Tansel