Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcsun!unido!ztivax!sof3
From: sof3@ztivax.UUCP (Walter Meyer)
Newsgroups: comp.object
Subject: Re: #define CLAIMS TRUE
Summary: Want to know more
Message-ID: <1205@ztivax.UUCP>
Date: 31 May 90 13:51:46 GMT
References: <31.UUL1.3#913@acw.com>
Organization: Siemens AG, Munich, W-Germany
Lines: 20

In article <31.UUL1.3#913@acw.com>, guthery@acw.com (Scott Guthery) writes:
> In a recent posting, Dan Weinreb argues essentially that since
> controlled experiments to test validity of the claims made for
> object-oriented would be so expensive these claims must be taken to
> be true until contrary evidence is presented.  When presented with
> such evidence ... the CAD/CAM disaster at MCC, for example ...

Being an OOD enthusiast who reads comp.object for the first time,
I am interested in more detailled information about such "disasters":

- What kind of problems did they want to solve by OOP ?

- Any explanations, excuses ... besides " We used the wrong methodology " ?




			Oliver Rothe 

	sof3@ztivax.siemens.com