lies about OOP
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