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: 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 X-Google-Thread: 11cae8,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid11cae8,public From: harry@matilda.alt.net.au (Harry Protoolis) Subject: Re: What is wrong with OO ? Date: 1996/12/04 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 202261811 references: <32A4659D.347A@shef.ac.uk> organization: alt.computer pty ltd newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.lnag.java,comp.object,comp.software-eng Date: 1996-12-04T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: On Tue, 03 Dec 1996 17:38:37 +0000, Ahmed wrote: >Hello Every Body > >I am a new research student working at the field of Object Oriented Technology. > ..I have several >critical opinions about Object Oriented in general, and I like to participate it > with you and hear >you expert comments and opinions > >Object Oriented Technology came with quite promising claims that if achieved can > benefit the software >development companies and organisations millions of pounds. > >Some of these claims for instance >1 - high reusability of objects and frameworks >2 - Resilience to change, i.e. low software maintenance and evolution cost >3 - Easier understanding by the user and Natural transition between the analysis > , design, >implementation because they all use tangible perceived objects. > >However the reality is not so bright as claimed..if so, then nobody today though > t to develop a >software on the traditional structural methods... > >My question is what is wrong with OO ? why it did not achieved its targets yet.? >What are the main obstacles? I think this is overly negative, OO has not been and never will be a 'silver bullet' to solve all software development problems, but no-one but a few spin doctors ever claimed it would be. However, the real question should be 'has OO made a significant positive difference', and in my experience the answer is a resounding 'yes!'. I have been a professional software engineer for 10 years now, the first half of which was spent fighting against traditional structured techinques, it was only despite them I was able to get anything finished. The traditional techniques all suffered from a number of significant flaws. Perhaps the most damaging one was what I (rather unkindly) think of as 'The glorification of idiots' phenomenon. What I mean by this is that projects were typically infested by a group of people who never wrote any software, but spent most of the budget drawing diagrams that the implementors never used. The main contribution of OO has been was could be termed 'The glorification on the implementor'. This has been achieved by the effective marriage of Analysis, Design and Implementation. The result is that every member of the team does all three of the key tasks. In fact IMHO an OO team has no place for anyone who cannot do all three tasks. Jim Coplein wrote an excellent pattern called 'Architect also Implements' which covers very nicely the reasoning behind not allowing non-implementors to design systems. Certainly the mecca of automatic reuse has not been achieved, but the quantity and quality of 3rd party components available for most OO languages already exceeds that available for their non-OO counterparts, and IHMO this suggests a bright future. Certainly OO has not made writing software trivial or automatic, but then, *nothing ever will*. Cheers, Harry - alt.computer pty ltd software development consultants