lies about OOP

[James Stroud]

It goes something like this (re-hashed a little):

"Every program of any complexity written in a procedural language will have a 
[half-assed] implementation of object oriented design."

On Monday 13 December 2004 07:33 pm, projecktzero wrote:
> I know this might not be the correct group to post this, but I thought
> I'd start here.
>
> A co-worker considers himself "old school" in that he hasn't seen the
> light of OOP.(It might be because he's in love with Perl...but that's
> another story.) He thinks that OOP has more overhead and is slower than
> programs written the procedural way. I poked around google, but I don't
> know the magic words to put in to prove or disprove his assertion. Can
> anyone point me toward some resources?
>
> We do web programming. I suspect that OO apps would behave as good as
> procedural apps, and you'd get the benefit of code reuse if you do it
> properly. Code reuse now consists of cutting and pasting followed by
> enough modification that I wonder if it was worth it to cut and paste
> in the first place.
>
> Thanks.

-- 
James Stroud, Ph.D.
UCLA-DOE Institute for Genomics and Proteomics
611 Charles E. Young Dr. S.
MBI 205, UCLA 951570
Los Angeles CA 90095-1570
http://www.jamesstroud.com/