Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c++:6407 comp.object:911
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!microsoft!jimad
From: jimad@microsoft.UUCP (JAMES ADCOCK)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.object
Subject: Re: Any real evidence for OOP benefits?
Message-ID: <10530@microsoft.UUCP>
Date: 10 Feb 90 01:05:10 GMT
References: <25C3AC55.8379@paris.ics.uci.edu> <1990Jan31.053709.5741@odi.com>
Reply-To: jimad@microsoft.UUCP (JAMES ADCOCK)
Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA
Lines: 28

In article <1990Jan31.053709.5741@odi.com> dlw@odi.com writes:
>In article <25C3AC55.8379@paris.ics.uci.edu> crane@paris.ics.uci.edu (Steven N. Crane) writes:
>
>   Everyone's heard of the alleged benefits of object-oriented
>   programming (improvements in reusability, productivity, buglessness, 
>   maintainability, etc.).
>
>   I believe it myself. (I can just feel the power when I use C++ :-). 
>   But does anyone have any references to actual *empirical* quantitative 
>   studies which have actually *measured* the extent of these benefits? 
>   Studies with real *numbers* in them.

Well, here's a simple, not-very-profound numerical study I did *just*
this afternoon: number of articles in computer journals referencing
the "object oriented" buzz-phrase.  Each number represents number
of articles during the previous year.  Total number of articles in
each time period was fairly constantly about 60,000.

Oct 88	 415
Jan 89	 516
Mar 89	 622
Jun 89	 806
Sep 89	1057
Jan 90	1289

Interpretation is left to the reader.  I don't know about you, but I feel
like I'm falling a *little* behind in my "object oriented" readings.  Of
course my cat *is* object oriented.  And I don't even *have* a cat.