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: fac41,d24e07f660698f1
X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,d24e07f660698f1
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Thread: f43e6,d24e07f660698f1
X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public
X-Google-Thread: 109fba,d24e07f660698f1
X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public
From: Andrew Semprebon <asemprebon@radcor.com>
Subject: Re: I use Eiffel! and other "strange tongues"!
Date: 1997/08/07
Message-ID: <33EA0A6D.42E6@radcor.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 262752337
References: <33C61545.167EB0E7@tower.com>
 <mheaney-ya023680001707970029500001@news.ni.net>
 <01bc94e6$9ced0820$287b7b7a@tlo2>
 <Pine.SOL.3.95.970730134300.20664A-100000@charlie>
 <Pine.SGI.3.95.970730073454.15333B-100000@shellx.best.com>
 <JSA.97Jul30150612@alexandria.organon.com> <33E1B18E.66B4DEC2@docs.uu.se>
 <33e4d7ec.1596193@news.deltanet.com> <33E36594.416A@ibm.net>
Organization: Radcor Technology
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-08-07T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Ian Nelson wrote:
> 
> I kind of agree with this to some extent.  OOP will best mimmick the
> world as the human mind sees it, and this will always be good when it
> comes to producing applications.  OOP will probably change over time,
> possibly in major ways but the religion will be the same and they will
> still call it OOP.

Does anyone else find this (often pushed) view of OOP a bit ironic?
Some counter examples:

1.  Many developers have had difficulty in learning OOP, and Steve
McConnell (in his book "Rapid Development") even goes so far as to
say that OOP is too difficult for the average programmer to do.

2.  Not long ago there was a discussion in (I think) comp.object
as to whether use cases were OO.  The consenses seemed to be that
they were not, but were still very useful for communicating with
users who would not otherwise understand the results of 
object-oriented analysis.

I don't see the OO paradigm as any more natural than, say, mathematical
reasoning, and yet both are, IMHO, very useful when developing programs.
OO is good because it forces us to change the way we think, to think
more clearly, not because it mimics the way we normally think.