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=0.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 109fba,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: fac41,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,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: rmartin@oma.com (Robert C. Martin) Subject: Re: What is wrong with OO ? Date: 1997/01/02 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 207295728 references: <5aa73v$p14@news3.digex.net> organization: Object Mentor Inc. newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.object,comp.software-eng Date: 1997-01-02T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article , jsa@alexandria (Jon S Anthony) wrote: > In article <5aa73v$p14@news3.digex.net> ell@access5.digex.net (Ell) writes: > > > Ian Joyner (i.joyner@acm.org) wrote: > > : Ell wrote: > > : > > > : > Ian Joyner (i.joyner@acm.org) wrote: > > : > > > : > : What made me think of this was that Bill Gates stated in his book that > > : > : Boeng designed the entire 777 aircraft using one gigantic electronic > > : > : document! Physical engineering disciplines have made good use of > > : > : computing technology, it's about time software engineers followed > > : > : the same path... better and more productive languages and environments, > > : > : and stop defending archaic 25 year old languages from another era. > > > > : > I find some 25 year languages like C++ very useful even today. A lot of > > : > following a good OO paradigm is in how tools are used and approached. > > > > : And people can still drive model T Fords, and fly WWI planes. > > > > I find the key aspects of C++ to be within the parameters of the > > _progressive_ OO paradigm and practice. In many ways C++ has led and > > still leads in the expression and implementation of many significantly > > useful OO concepts. > > With respect to this "led/leads" claim: Such as????? I can't think of > _any_ where this is true. Though I can think of at least one > important _implementation_ aspect where this seems to be true. > C++ is not a leader from the standpoint of theory. C++ does not present an embodiment of any new technical theory. I can't think of anything within C++ that was not tried in some other language first. What C++ *does* do is combine these features into a language that is palatable to and usable by a very large cohort of engineers. C++ leads in terms of acceptability. It presents the OO concepts in a way that is acceptable the the majority of users. It would appear that Java is following suit, and is acceptable to a large majority of users. Indeed it may be that Java will supplant C++ in several industrial domains. I think however, that there are several domains (e.g. hard real time systems) in which C++ will remain predominant. -- Robert C. Martin | Design Consulting | Training courses offered: Object Mentor | rmartin@oma.com | Object Oriented Design 14619 N Somerset Cr | Tel: (847) 918-1004 | C++ Green Oaks IL 60048 | Fax: (847) 918-1023 | http://www.oma.com "One of the great commandments of science is: 'Mistrust arguments from authority.'" -- Carl Sagan