Xref: utzoo comp.object:446 comp.lang.c++:5590
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnewsl!lbl
From: lbl@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (leslie.b.locklear)
Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Guthery slams OOP in latest DDJ
Summary: It was drivel
Message-ID: <2960@cbnewsl.ATT.COM>
Date: 21 Nov 89 07:13:58 GMT
References: <2664@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 78

In article <2664@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu>, cjoslyn@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Cliff Joslyn) writes:
> 
> I'm not an OOP programmer, but I read a real convincing argument in the
> latest Doctor Dobb's Journal #158, "Are the Emporer's New Clothes Object
> Oriented?", pp. 80-86 by Scott Guthrey.  
> 
  Stuff deleted...

> Any comments?

Yes.  This article, like so many in DDJ was bogus.  The author carefully 
concocted his arguments with the absolute worst examples that he could find
in the OOP world and presented the problems as if each one were typically found
in *every* OOP language, program, and system.  What is worse is that he did 
not acknowledge that the very same problems exist in the structured programming
way of doing things.

The following comments are little gripes for those who have read the article.
If you haven't read it, you probably want to hit n now.

His example of the Intel 432 was especially poor.  Do all object oriented
languages use the 432 model?  Not at all.  Why didn't he mention SOAR?  Or
has he even heard of it?

I'm glad that Grace Hopper used OOP in 1944.  I wish he would have shown us 
some of her code -- it would have made interesting reading.  Unfortunately I 
doubt that *he* has seen it.  And what language did she use?  What's that you 
say? Object oriented assembler?  Well, it doesn't surprise me that the author 
feels that assembler is an OOP.  After all, he thinks that Algol and Fortran 
II *FULLY* supported objects.  Get real!

The author thinks that Stroustrup wrote an article in 1980 that described C++
and complains that 2.0 is incompatible with that description and that its
description isn't complete yet.  He goes further and gripes saying "Can 
anything that's this hard to define be good for writing understandable and 
maintainable programs?"  Well, I'm not going to argue the merits of C++, but 
a language called "C with classes" was described in the paper referenced by 
the author.  It wasn't C++.  Furthermore, I understand that the author's 
beloved Fortran language description isn't complete yet.  And it won't be 
as long as people use Fortran.

The author also writes at some length about how ineffecient OOP languages are,
why reusability is bad, etc.  He also makes some arguments as to how inheritence
is misused and why it is bad for team projects.  To back up his assertions he 
gives anecdotal evidence about some projects he was involved with.   Well, 
I am quite sure there are plenty of bad examples that can be given for both 
OOP and structured methods.  I've seen a few with my own eyes.  The author 
fails in this area, as in the rest of the article, to give enough concrete 
information to back up his claims.  He doesn't say what language was used, how 
many people were involved, what the goals of the projects were, what kind of 
support the management gave the projects, and last but certainly not least, 
how much experience the team members had with the language used and OOP in 
general.  Content free arguments such as his are to be ignored.

I could go on, but to sum it up, the author makes up his own definition of
what he thinks object oriented programming is and proceeds to blast it
using poorly constructed, hear-say arguments.  The article is virtually
free of any hard information that might back up the author's assertions.

I do have to agree with the author on one thing.  There is far too much hype
being spread about the benefits that object-oriented programming will bring
to us all.  I think that OOP is a GOOD THING and an improvement over the
structured methodologies that languages such as Algol, Fortran, etc. have
spawned.  However, we still have a long road to travel before the benefits of 
OOP are realized for most of us.

> 
> -- 
> O------------------------------------------------------------------------->
> | Cliff Joslyn, Cybernetician at Large, cjoslyn@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu
> | Systems Science, SUNY Binghamton, Binghamton NY 13901
> V All the world is biscuit shaped. . .

Barry Locklear
AT&T Bell Labs
attunix!lbl
lbl@sf.att.com
(415) 324-6019