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: 103376,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 11cae8,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid11cae8,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) Subject: Re: What is wrong with OO ? Date: 1996/12/17 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 204563614 references: <32A4659D.347A@shef.ac.uk> <32A71BC6.2D857063@arscorp.com> <32A82AFE.255A@possibility.com> <58bq8c$3n6@news.utdallas.edu> <32AA207E.3199@deep.net> <32B3F45C.5140@deep.net> organization: New York University newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.lnag.java,comp.object,comp.software-eng Date: 1996-12-17T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Tansel says "First of all, my opinion is, developing systems with procedure oriented techniques is a dangerous, wasteful and unproductive process." It is this kind of unsupporable hyperbole that gives OO a bad name! Why is it that when anyone comes along with new techniques that represent a useful incremental advance in our knowledge in this area (e.g. functional programming, proof of correctness, your-favorite-fad-here) they feel compelled to hype them like this with the approach "what we have done before is an unmitigated disaster, but my new technique will make a revolutionary difference". The trouble with such hype is that inevitably it does not deliver, and then there is a danger of throwing out the baby with the bathwater and discarding what is useful along with the hype. The fact of the matter is that there is NO giant shift of paradigm involved here, despite what anyone says. Just look at the OO programs that people produce. They are not radically different from conventional procedural programs, and one would not expect them to be. OO techniques are a useful way of extending the conceptual design domain, and OO features in programming languages allow added flexibility in the solution space. Good! But trying to fit everything into the OO mold is as reasonable as believing these ads on TV that suggest that all your handy-man's problems at home can be solved with one amazing tool!