lies about OOP

Daniel T. postmaster at earthlink.net
Thu Dec 16 02:15:02 CET 2004


"H. S. Lahman" <h.lahman at verizon.net> wrote:

> > Les Hatton "Does OO sync with the way we think?", IEEE Software, 15(3),
> > p.46-54
> > "This paper argues from real data that OO based systems written in C++
> > appear to increase the cost of fixing defects significantly when
> > compared with systems written in either C or Pascal. It goes on to
> > suggest that at least some aspects of OO, for example inheritance, do
> > not fit well with the way we make mistakes."
> 
> Try and find and experienced OO developer who would advocate that large, 
> complex generalizations are a good practice.  You can write lousy 
> programs in any paradigm.  The likelihood increases when you use the 
> most technically deficient of all the OOPLs.  (If those developers had 
> used Smalltalk, I'll bet their defect rates would have been 
> substantially lower even if they weren't very good OO developers.)

Careful, the paper never claims that C++ produced more defects than C or 
Pascal. It only claims that the defects found in the C++ program were 
more costly to fix. That is a very big difference.

However, I agree completely with the rest of your comments.



More information about the Python-list mailing list