lies about OOP

Mark Nicholls nicholls.mark at mtvne.com
Thu Dec 16 17:29:52 CET 2004


"H. S. Lahman" <h.lahman at verizon.net> wrote in message
news:Lwiwd.15730$sr2.7536 at trndny02...
> Responding to Daniel T....
>
> >>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.
>
> You're right.  That's what I get for responding from memory of my
> original reading of the paper.  The mind is the second thing to go.
>
If it claims there are more defects in C++ than in C, then I am more than
willing to believe it, I would struggle to get a 3 line c++ program to
compile let alone run.

The leap that equates C++ to OOP, and C to SP would seem to be tenuous
though.





More information about the Python-list mailing list