Re: What is wrong with OO ?

[Tansel Ersavas <tansel@rase.com>]

Nigel Tzeng wrote:

...

> >First of all, my opinion is, developing systems with procedure oriented
> >techniques is a dangerous, wasteful and unproductive process. So far OO
> 
> Any particular reason why?  Do you have metrics that show that procedure
> oriented techniques are inherently dangerous or wasteful?  What do you
> mean by dangerous anyway?

I have stated this in a few of my previous postings. However, I will
post about this subject in detail after the new year. You might also
want to look at my reply to David Rush (drush@zakalwe.raleigh.ibm.com).

...
 
> We are an OO shop and there are many advantages to doing OO design but
> is it the savior of all programming projects?  Nah.  Is it really THAT
> much more efficient or successful than SASD?  Nah.

The problem is how we currently apply the OO approach. It CAN be THAT
much more efficient than SA SD. Again, you might want to browse my reply
to David Rush. 
 
> Why?  Becuase the root cause of a lot of project failure isn't with
> the underlying technology (OO vs SASD) but due to the politics and
> social dynamics of any project.
> 
> My opinion is that peopleware issues are more important than the
> underlying methodology used in a project...and that you are far more
> likely to see these "order of magnitude" productivity changes by
> adhering to Peopleware than OO (not that Peopleware is a silver bullet
> mind you :).

That is very true, indeed I have stated it in many of my postings. I
stated that the only silver bullet is to have the right people, right
type of organization, right type of approach and right types of tools
all together. One missing, efficiency reduces dramatically
 
...
> 
> >Anybody wishing to see these techniques in action, I'm happy to
> >demonstrate them. It is the only proof I can show to anyone that OO
> >works, and works much better than anything they have seen so far. And
> >without unlearning, it wouldn't have been possible.
> 
> I think that most members of this newsgroup are open to new ideas and
> success stories.  Feel free to share your experience.

I'll sure do that. So far, I only had to reply to individual postings,
which can not give clear view of my ideas. I plan to prepare a posting
about this discussion and send it after the new year, time permitting.  

... 
> Great...well I suppose that we can increase productivity by changing the
> light level every couple of months.

Which can be done, of course. And if you don't believe me, just visit a
hen battery to see how they are, or can be tricked to get twice the eggs
by changing the light level twice a day. (Not recommending it for
anybody though)
 
> >Any time a new paradigm comes around there are pioneers. They make the
> >bold decisions to shape the history. They are less than 1% of the
> >participants. Pioneers are nothing but visioners and believers. They
> >create their evidence, and history.
> 
> And never ever let one of these folks lead your project.  Yeah, they will
> strike gold 1% of the time but do you really want to be on the other 99%
> of the projects?
> 
> Now these folks can change the face of the market...but it's too bad
> that in general some popularizer steals the market from the visionary.
> 
> Steve Jobs lives here...

I agree with your sentiments.
 
> >Then there come early adopters. People who don't need "empirical
> >evidence". Who use their intuition to make sense of what the pioneers
> >are pointing to.
> 
> These folks have a higher success rate but people who live on the cutting
> edge tend to bleed.  Will they really gain a significant market advantage?
> Depends a little on luck...but if there's nothing to lose.
> 
> I'd say Netscape lives here...they scored big by early adoption of
> internet technology and splitting off from NCSA.

That's true as well
 
> >Then there are popularizers. People are quicker than the others, just
> >like the people who watch the other traffic lights to see when they are
> >going red so that they could be the first to respond to the green light.
> >They require evidence, but can act very quickly.
> 
> Probaby the best place to live...the visionaries and early adopters
> has weeded out the "looked like a good idea on paper" strategies out
> and there are valuable lessons to be mined from their successes and
> failures.

That's also very agreeable, which is just about where we are coming in
OO. 

...
 
> >Then there are followers, much like people passing at the green light.
> >They do nothing but go with the crowd. There must be empirical evidence
> >for them.
> 
> And most of us sit here.  After all, most of us aren't doing anything
> to win Nobel prizes over or changing the face of the market.
 
And there's nothing wrong with it. In many issues, I choose to be a
follower, even conservative in some. 

...

> The thing is that the best programmers out there are constantly
> learning, making improvements and adopting new technology as it
> becomes useful.  But they don't tend to be zealots over any particular
> tool or even set of tools...because one you buy into a particular
> paradigm with heart and soul you're a lot less likely to change or to
> see the problems with the paradigm.

That's true. However, that's naturally done by many in the form of
unconsciously clinging to the existing paradigm, probably till its
collapse. However we deny it, paradigms shape our thinking, which is at
the center of this discussion. Many people think that they can look at
procedure orientation from a neutral point of view, but they can't.
Here, I can't help but quote from Ed Yourdon: 

<< Please only quote this as a whole >>
" 'From Emerging Software Technologies by Ed Yourdon:'
. Software methodologies are often supported and marketed by a 
  specific vendor, or guru
. The guru becomes dependent on the success of his/her methodology in 
  order to pay rent and maintain credibility/status/ego
. The fiery, young revolutionary often becomes conservative old fart, 
  defending his/her paradigm as more and more exceptions and problems 
  found
. Methodology collapses under its own weight when a critical mass of 
  people believes that it no longer serves their needs - but the change 
  is often delayed for years and decades  because of inertia, 
  politics, etc. "
<< End quote >>

 
> Besides...methodologies are only tools...important in that they help
> us get the job done but they are not and should not be the focus of
> our excitement (unless we are researchers).

That's true, but there is also nothing wrong about being excited about
something that you can see it can clearly improve your productivity
dramatically.
 
> There is an interesting comment I read in a home theater magazine
> where an individual states that he never wanted to be one of those
> people who said "Hey, you have to come over and see/hear my system!"
> because the objective is to come over and see a movie or hear music.
> The A/V equipment should be so good as to be unnoticable.

This is probably more relevant to computers themselves, being ugly bulks
of heat producing masses with primitive user interfaces that still tend
to alienate a reasonable chunk of people from what they can offer. I
agree with what you say about this subject.  

> Likewise I'd rather say "Hey, come use my great new product" and not
> "Hey, we designed this thing using OO isn't that great!"

That's true. In fact what people will call OO will be largely defined by
themselves. It is not very right to apply a rigid classification and
divide things in two, and unconditionlly defend one. However, it is also
important the differences of different apporaches and their potential
benefits to make people more aware of what is possible with other
approaches.
 
> Nigel

Tansel
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
RASE Inc.                                                  Clark NJ USA
Voice: (908) 396 7145                            mailto:tansel@rase.com
Fax:   (908) 382 1383                              http://www.rase.com/
----Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic---
-------------------------------A.C. Clarke-----------------------------