Re: What is wrong with OO ?

[malak@access2.digex.net (Michael Malak)]

In article <32BB2C50.2B0B@rase.com>, Tansel Ersavas  <tansel@rase.com> wrote:
>
><< $1,000,000.- Question >>
>What is the most important difference between the procedural paradigm
>and the object oriented paradigm that makes OO a significantly different
>one? 
><< End question >> 

OO reduces complexity in a system by reducing the number of
dependencies.  A good OO system will have a number of loosely
coupled objects, with much of the detail encapsulated in the
objects themselves.

Moreover, OO systems are resiliant to change.  In OO, one
identifies the "objects", the "things" in the domain.  It
turns out that these boundaries change less frequently
than do their implementations.  Objects may (and are
almost always) expanded, but not "changed" as the system
grows.

In procedural systems, boundaries are less common (to be sure,
different "subsystems" are independent, but that's the big
exception) and less rigid.  Dependencies are combinatorically
more prevalent.  Worse, the dependencies are not necessarily
organized or recognized in any explicit way, so that a change
to one part of the system has unknown effects in other parts
of the system.

OO exploits (and relies upon) human being's ability to
abstract -- to be able to see a table and recognize its
"tableness" -- in order to "magically" reduce dependencies,
complexity, and brittleness (w.r.t. change).

-- 
Michael Malak         Magic forwarding e-mail address:
Washington, DC        malak@acm.org