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=2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20,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: 109fba,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: fac41,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Ian Joyner Subject: Re: What is wrong with OO ? Date: 1996/12/31 Message-ID: <32C88BE0.7F2B@acm.org>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 206876409 references: <5a9r1k$e74@news4.digex.net> content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii organization: Unisys mime-version: 1.0 reply-to: i.joyner@acm.org newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.object,comp.software-eng x-mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (WinNT; I) Date: 1996-12-31T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Ell wrote: > > Ian Joyner (i.joyner@acm.org) wrote: > > : What made me think of this was that Bill Gates stated in his book that > : Boeng designed the entire 777 aircraft using one gigantic electronic > : document! Physical engineering disciplines have made good use of > : computing technology, it's about time software engineers followed > : the same path... better and more productive languages and environments, > : and stop defending archaic 25 year old languages from another era. > > I find some 25 year languages like C++ very useful even today. A lot of > following a good OO paradigm is in how tools are used and approached. And people can still drive model T Fords, and fly WWI planes. The most important tool is the compiler. The problem with C and C++ tools is that many of them are to make up for language deficiencies. With a better designed language, which takes into account what modern computers can do, the need for many of these tools simply disappears. Also as I wrote in another thread, the need for most style rules that programmers are encumbered with also disappears. > : And this gets back to a point ... made quite a while ago > : in this thread, that analysis and design is programming, and that > : these should not be done by different groups. > > Because Boeing had a super diagram doesn't mean it's highest level was > predicated on a single, or even specific set of, technology, i.e. on one > or more specific languages, or distribution technologies in our case. Correct. It would be using the compound document paradigm. > For more along these lines one should read Constantine's end column in > the latest Object magazine. He advocates _delaying_ implementation as > much as possible. Exactly, the point! In fact the implementation should be left up to the compiler. But too much with C++ you are forced to think of how to implement things early. It is rather like flying the WWI plane, where you must think to go left, I must adjust the tail to do so. My paper at: http://www.progsoc.uts.edu.au/~geldridg/cpp/cppcv3.html explains how C++ burdens the programmer with 'early implementation' problems, and explains how good OO languages should remove this burden from the programmer. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ian Joyner | "for when lenity and cruelty play | All opinions are Internet email: | for a kingdom, the gentler | personal and are i.joyner@acm.org | gamester is the soonest winner" | not Unisys | William Shakespeare Henry V | official comment ------------------------------------------------------------------------