Xref: utzoo comp.object:448 comp.lang.c++:5592
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!xanth!mcnc!ncsuvx!ecemwl!jnh
From: jnh@ecemwl.ncsu.edu (Joseph N. Hall)
Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Guthery slams OOP in latest DDJ
Message-ID: <4602@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu>
Date: 21 Nov 89 06:15:38 GMT
References: <2664@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu>
Sender: news@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu
Reply-To: jnh@ecemwl.UUCP (Joseph N. Hall)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Lines: 44

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.  
>...
>And more: "...the programmer is invited to pass the cost of expedience
>onto the user of the system.  This wholesale sacrificing of runtime
>efficiency to programmer's convenience, this emphasis on the ease with
>which code is generated to the exclusion of the quality, usability, and
>maintainability of that code, is not found in any production programming
>environment with which I am familiar. ...

Pardon me, but is he discussing any OOP environment that is actually in
use???  How does C++ sacrifice runtime efficiency in ANY manner?  (I mean,
if you've got to have virtual something you've got to have virtual
SOMETHING ...)  How is Smalltalk deficient (compared to, say, FORTRAN)
in the quality, usability and maintainability of code?  Does Mr. Guthrey
perhaps prefer ADA?  (Or, then again, maybe that's what he things represents
the future of OOP.)

DDJ has lately become a nasty little magazine in which I've seen all kinds
off-the-wall viewpoints ... as an aside, I remember a few months ago when
one of the contributors stated flatly that there was no viable system for
winning at blackjack and that we shouldn't bother him with letters saying
there was ... now I have the perspective of someone who worked with a friend
on a thorough, closed numerical analysis of Atlantic City BJ and I can tell
you that their expected take per hand IF you play correctly is about .5%,
and that if you count correctly you can periodically find the deck in such
shape that YOU can eke out .1-.5% -- it's pretty tough on your brain, though.
But anyway, this lofty, uninformed tone is too prevalent in DDJ for me
nowadays and I just don't enjoy reading the magazine.

Sigh ... guess I'll have to go out and get this one, though ...

As others have said and others will say after me, if you want convincing
arguments FOR OOP, consult Bertrand Meyer's "Object-Oriented Software
Construction" -- heavy Eiffel slant, but the first few chapters are quite
general and tremendously readable.

v   v sssss|| joseph hall                      || 4116 Brewster Drive
 v v s   s || jnh@ecemwl.ncsu.edu (Internet)   || Raleigh, NC  27606
  v   sss  || SP Software/CAD Tool Developer, Mac Hacker and Keyboardist
-----------|| Disclaimer: NCSU may not share my views, but is welcome to.