Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c++:6356 comp.object:879
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!vsi1!octopus!sjsumcs!horstman
From: horstman@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu (Cay Horstmann)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.object
Subject: Re: Any real evidence for OOP benefits?
Message-ID: <1990Feb4.064749.3035@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu>
Date: 4 Feb 90 06:47:49 GMT
References: <25C3AC55.8379@paris.ics.uci.edu> <1990Jan31.053709.5741@odi.com> <90033.143411UH2@PSUVM.BITNET>
Reply-To: horstman@sjsumcs.SJSU.EDU (Cay Horstmann)
Organization: San Jose State University
Lines: 25

What is the alternative to OOP? Deliberately NOT using OO techniques?
Oops, that struct over there looks too much like an object. Better rewrite
that code...

OO is a technique, not a religion. It is one tool in the toolkit of the
enlightened programmer who is going to use it when it is appropriate. 
To come up with a dumb analogy, it is like recursion. Sometimes it works
great, sometimes not. Have you seen people run seminars on the weighty
question whether the benefits of recursion can be measured?

Ok, now suppose we do "measure" the benefits. We teach one group of
programmers about OOP, when it is useful and when not. And then we have
them and a control group work on a problem. How can we insure against
the fact that the people who didn't flunk out of the OOP course are
probably smarter/more alert than the control group? At any rate those
people will have had some extra mental stimulation just before they
started the project. What kind of project will be selected? It would be
interesting to select one where OO techniques could have no earthly 
significance, but who is going to do that? No, they'll pick some project
where OO will probably make some difference. And, SURPRISE, the OO group
will be the better one. 

That is the kind of stuff I could get tenure for.

Cay