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=0.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,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: 109fba,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 11cae8,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid11cae8,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,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 From: kmajor@jagor.srce.hr (Kazimir Majorinc) Subject: Re: What is wrong with OO ? Date: 1996/12/14 Message-ID: <58v04c$r9l@bagan.srce.hr>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 204136622 distribution: world references: <32A5A86A.1AF1@shef.ac.uk> <32A82932.4A73@mci.com> <1996Dec7.151850.877@prim.demon.co.uk> <32AA978F.7D64@deep.net> followup-to: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.lnag.java,comp.object,comp.software-eng content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII organization: Public host at University Computing Centre, Zagreb, CROATIA mime-version: 1.0 newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.lnag.java,comp.object,comp.software-eng Date: 1996-12-14T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Tansel Ersavas (tansel@deep.net) wrote: : 1. "The cancelled projects with money down the drain" is not a part of : the OO problem, but a general IS one. I know two 100 million projects : cancelled after 5 years of great hopes, money and sweat, and they : weren't OO projects. Every year, hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars are Ubelievable. For that money I could do anything they want. Simulation of whole world economy? No problem! Programming language more complicated than C++? No problem! I do not understand? I can not imagine problem which can not be solved with that money, except if it comes from mathematical world. : 3. I am not a particular fan of the RAD approach. It doesn't imply OO, : in fact, OO is only later tucked on to it. RAD is Today's techniques : applied to Yesterday's organization structure. OO is not essential to : the RAD, and If RAD fails, the failure can not be attributed to its : tucked on OO component. Yeah, neither I. : Anyway, I think that for OO to succeed, there are certain prerequisites. : 1. People and the organization that they are in : 2. Proper techniques (such as OO) : 3. Tools .......... Unfortunately, OO is based on completely wrong principle. If it succeed, it would be on costs which are several times bigger than on procedural paradigm. Which does not mean that it will not succeed commercialy. There are several wrong, although attractive possibilities of OO. Example: If type B is succesor of type A, in that case neither overriding nor polymorphism have no sense. If B requires different procedure than A, which should be more general it means that B is not specialisation of A. I say, complet chaos, which could look nice, like it looked to me before 3 years. _______________________________________________ Author: Kazimir Majorinc, Zagreb, Croatia E-mail: Kazimir.Majorinc@public.srce.hr kmajor@public.srce.hr (slightly better) http: //public.srce.hr/~kmajor (~7min to USA) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ One who knows the secret of the 7th stair