Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!wuarchive!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!uw-june!bnfb
From: bnfb@cs.washington.edu (Bjorn Freeman-Benson)
Newsgroups: comp.object
Subject: Re: COBOL? (Is an object-oriented language necessary?)
Message-ID: <13653@june.cs.washington.edu>
Date: 7 Nov 90 17:06:59 GMT
References: <694@ghp.UUCP> <1864.2736eae0@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com>
Reply-To: bnfb@june.cs.washington.edu (Bjorn Freeman-Benson)
Organization: University of Washington, Computer Science, Seattle
Lines: 21

In article <1864.2736eae0@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com> klimas@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com writes:
>	Basically, OO in a language that doesn't properly support it 
>	is a real problem!

Hogwash!  Fancy tools do not a craftsperson make.
Better yet, read the article in CACM which was a reprint/improvement
of the paper in OOPSLA'86 titled "An Object-Oriented Approach to a
Large Scientific Application".  Jonathan Jacky and Ira Kalet wrote a
large radiation therapy treatment planning program in PASCAL,
definitely not an object-oriented language.  The conclusion on page 374
of the OOPSLA version is "We learned that object-oriented programming is
useful for ..., and does not require the support of a special programming
language.  Our experience confirms that of others who have attempted an an
object-oriented style in the context of traditional programming
environments [references CACM Oct 1982 re a object-oriented project
in FORTRAN].  We feel that it is important to distinguish between
object-oriented design, and object-oriented languages...
Programming tools can provide many conveniences, but in our view
they are really central to the object-oriented approach.

Bjorn N. Freeman-Benson