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,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: 11cae8,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid11cae8,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: nickt@bain.oz.au (Nick Thurn) Subject: Re: What is wrong with OO ? Date: 1996/12/05 Message-ID: <587mav$a6u@plath.bain.oz.au>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 202584297 references: <32A4659D.347A@shef.ac.uk> followup-to: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.lnag.java,comp.object,comp.software-eng organization: Bain & Company newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.lnag.java,comp.object,comp.software-eng Date: 1996-12-05T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: IMO asking "what is wrong with OO?" is a bit like asking "what is wrong with a hammer?" My point is OO is only a tool. The user of a tool is fundamental to the results. IMO if anything is wrong with OO it is inflated expectations. In the end it is people who create software. Good people create good software in any language/paradigm. Good OO looks deceptivly simple. Attaining simplicity is the hard part. I think of it as the difference between whistling a tune and writing a tune. Currently there are to many writers and not enough whistlers :) Regarding reuse and reusability, there are two levels of reuse: personal and strangers. Personal (including your team) reuse is pretty easy to achieve, reuse by strangers is hard. Reusable is in the eye of the reuser not the writer. All a writer can do is *attempt* to create reusable code it is for others to decide whether it is reusable or not. In C++ land the biggest barrier to reuse has been the proliferation of proprietry container librarys (usually as part of a more high level set of functionality). With the standard basically here this problem may go away. We still have the problem that most (probably all) mature librarys are written in legacy C++, when will they port across? when will compilers be available that handle all the new features? when will there be a standard ABI? IMO OO is a great tool, if it is flawed it is the execution not the concept. Oh well, back to the salt mines... cheers Nick (my opinions only)