Xref: utzoo comp.object:456 comp.lang.c++:5602
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!aplcen!samsung!cs.utexas.edu!pp!cadillac!vaughan@mcc.com
From: vaughan@mcc.com (Paul Vaughan)
Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Guthery slams OOP in latest DDJ
Message-ID: <4158@cadillac.CAD.MCC.COM>
Date: 21 Nov 89 21:55:17 GMT
References: <2664@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu>
Sender: news@cadillac.CAD.MCC.COM
Reply-To: vaughan@mcc.com (Paul Vaughan)
Followup-To: comp.object
Organization: MCC VLSI CAD Program
Lines: 47
In-reply-to: cjoslyn@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Cliff Joslyn)


I've thought about a few of these issues, and I can see some merit to
comparing OOP with some outdated programming practices, but this
Guthery fellow has simply got it wrong.

From cjoslyn@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu and his quote of Guthery:
	He says a lot of things, but one quote: "Stripped of its fancy jargon,
	an object is a lexically-scoped subroutine with multiple mutiple entry
	points and persistent state.  OOP has been around since subroutines were
	invented in the 1940s.  Objects were fully supported in the early
	programming languages AED-0, Algol, and Fortran II.  OOP was, however,
	regarded as bad programming style by Fortran aficionados". 

This would be true if it were only possible to make a single instance
of each object class.  By making a C file with static variables and
several different functions that manipulate those variables, you can
get something close to object oriented programming.  However, this
style is NOT OOP.  It is difficult to maintain and has been abandoned
by OOP practioners for very good reason.  Guthery's mention of
multiple entry points isn't even close.

	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.  

This hardly deserves a reply, especially given the data reviewed on
the net recently showing comparable speed for C and C++ programs.  One
point I'd like to make though is that sometimes the programmer is the
user.  That is, programmers USE library code and system facilities to
program.  Less sophisticated users also write code on a routine basis,
only that fact is usually obscured by a fancy interface, like a
spreadsheet.

	Now for what I feel is a valid criticism.  Object Oriented
Programs are generally not reentrant.  This is generally not important
to most application writers, but an OO OS or embedded systems writer
would need to recognize that.  



	

 Paul Vaughan, MCC CAD Program | ARPA: vaughan@mcc.com | Phone: [512] 338-3639
 Box 200195, Austin, TX 78720  | UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!milano!cadillac!vaughan