Re: What is wrong with OO ?

[sshuster@parcplace.com (Samuel S. Shuster)]

Todd Hoff,

 >OO is not supposed to be a specialized tool but a general 
 >methodology for designing and implementing software systems.

  Maybe that's a problem in and of itself. Maybe OO is supposed to be a
specialized tool, but has been inappropriately hyped so much that too many
people think that it is supposed to be E-Z.

  Let's look out to the side a moment. VisualBasic. Certainly it's one of those
"EveryMan" tools. But why does it fail so bad on large enterprise systems, and
in particular why does it fail so bad when the system requires large groups of
interacting subsystems and interaction between developers and testing and even
worse for maintenance?

  I've got an opinion as to why. VisualBasic does not promote a disciplined
approach to development. I hold that in fact it promotes a cowboy attitude. In
order to get to the large system with all that goes with it with VisualBasic,
one not only has to diligently apply an external discipline, one has to fight
the tool in order to do so!

  What OT (or any methodology does) is define a discipline. Is it a general
methodology? Yes. But a methodology none the less, and as such, demands that
discipline be used in order to see any benefit from it. Lip service doesn't do
it. Knowledge alone doesn't do it. Doing it, with rigor, is the only way.

  So, if OT has failed in any way, it is in not stopping the hype that allows
people to perceive that OT is just some kind of E-Z solution to all their
problems.

  Is OT a better discipline for developing large systems? I believe so, but I
don't believe that this is the debate here.

  A better question is, has Structured/Procedural Technology failed? If we only
judge by looking in the context of how the majority of procedural
tools/languages are used, then in my opinion, Yes. It has failed miserably... in
my further opinion, it has failed worse than OT.

  However, if we look and judge by when the rigor of the discipline of
Structured/Procedural technology is used, then I believe it has succeeded fairly
well.

  Further, if we look and judge Object Technology in terms of a rigor &
discipline, I believe it to be successful also.

  Finally, we come to the comparison. When we look and judge by rigor &
discipline, and then finally _add_ in effectiveness and then compare, then I
believe OT is comparatively more successful.

  But to reiterate, this all depends, deeply, on the fact that OT isn't a
belief, isn't simply the understanding of three concepts (Encapsulation,
Inheritance and Polymorphism), isn't even simply the correct applying of these
and related concepts.

  It is a discipline. It is a discipline like all other disciplines that in
order to be successful must be applied. Applied rigorously. In my opinion,
anything less is not Object Technology... It's the lip service of the self
anointed experts whom I wouldn't trust to design my cat's upchucked hair
balls... even from a fresh example.

  So, what's wrong with OO? What's wrong is people who think they should be able
to see the structure of molecules with a High School Microscope, and are then so
overwhelmed when someone says "It takes a powerful electron microscope, bub, and
you'll have to learn how to use one, and apply some discipline in order to get
the results you need"

  TANSTAAFL. The biggest problem facing the software community is the too
widespread belief that Object Technology is a free lunch.
                                And So It Goes
                                     Sames

============================================================================
sshuster@parcplace.com
ParcPlace-Digitalk
Consultant
All opinions are my own.
============================================================================