... C++ *appears* to increase the cost of fixing defects ...
Some additional points:
Some languages allow direct pointer manipulation
which favors certain classes of bugs.
This is independent of whether the language is OO,
and these are probably the most costly defects
to find (hanging
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A paper finding that OOP can lead to more buggy software is at
http://www.leshatton.org/IEEE_Soft_98a.html
Sure, OOP *can* lead to more buggy software, that doesn't mean it always
does.
Les Hatton Does OO sync with the way we think?, IEEE Software, 15(3),
p.46-54
H. S. Lahman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Les Hatton Does OO sync with the way we think?, IEEE Software, 15(3),
p.46-54
This paper argues from real data that OO based systems written in C++
appear to increase the cost of fixing defects significantly when
compared with systems written in
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 17:37:08 -0500, rumours say that Peter Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] might have written:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Peter Hansen wrote:
Well, in any case, thanks for setting the record straight, Martjin.
That of course also happens to me once every while. I can take care of
Paul Foley wrote:
That's because their language is derived from Serbo-Croat.
No it isn't.
time to tune your absurd humour sensor somewhat slightly? I thought
the next sentence was a pretty obvious giveaway:
But both the Finns and the Swedes will tell you it's the
Norwegians who are
To canadians there is no outside of hockey games.
Jeff Shannon wrote:
Peter Hansen wrote:
P.S.: I'm only half Danish, but the other half is from
a particularly bloodthirsty line of Canadians.
I thought it was physically impossible for Canadians to be bloodthirsty
outside of hockey games... ;)
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Peter Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
P.S.: I'm only half Danish, but the other half is from a particularly
bloodthirsty line of Canadians.
Oh, you're part Quebecois?
--
Aahz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) * http://www.pythoncraft.com/
19. A language that
Peter Hansen wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Peter Hansen wrote:
Well, in any case, thanks for setting the record straight, Martjin.
That of course also happens to me once every while. I can take care of
myself though -- Dijkstra however needs an advocate for the correct
spelling of his name in
H. S. Lahman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Responding to Daniel T
Try and find and experienced OO developer who would advocate that large,
complex generalizations are a good practice. You can write lousy
programs in any paradigm. The likelihood increases
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Peter Hansen wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Peter Hansen wrote:
Well, in any case, thanks for setting the record straight, Martjin.
That of course also happens to me once every while. I can take care
of myself though -- Dijkstra however needs an advocate for the
correct
Peter Hansen wrote:
P.S.: I'm only half Danish, but the other half is from
a particularly bloodthirsty line of Canadians.
I thought it was physically impossible for Canadians to be bloodthirsty
outside of hockey games... ;)
Jeff Shannon
Technician/Programmer
Credit International
--
Steve Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
provide class methods. Though for the life of me I don't *really* know
why I find it acceptable in Python to have to write module.func(args)
when I dislike having to write class.meth(args) in Java.
I have the same
Mike Meyer wrote:
If OOP is so beneficial for large projects, why are the Linux kernel,
the interpreters for Perl and Python, and most compilers I know written
in C rather than C++?
Because C++ combines the worst features of C and OO programming. It
also makes some defaults go the wrong
binL9yPfo4Fv5.bin
Description: application/pgp-encrypted
msg.asc
Description: Binary data
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Paul McGuire wrote:
Martijn Faassen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Paul McGuire wrote:
[snip]
I would characterize the 80's as the transitional decade from structured
programming (which really started to hit its stride when Djikstra
published
Use of GOTO Considered
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Peter Hansen wrote:
Well, in any case, thanks for setting the record straight, Martjin.
That of course also happens to me once every while. I can take care of
myself though -- Dijkstra however needs an advocate for the correct
spelling of his name in this earthly realm.
Peter Hansen:
(Darn those Norwegians, influencing people's ideas of how a
name like Hansen ought to be spelled, grumble, grumble.
And then there's my sister, a Nelson, who drove with friends
of their's, the Olsons, to visit our aunt and uncle, the Larsons,
and my grandmother, born a Hanson.
On Tue, 2004-12-14 at 18:27, Roy Smith wrote:
Terry Reedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I did not really 'get' OOP until after learning Python. The
relatively simple but powerful user class model made more sense to
me than C++. So introducing someone to Python, where OOP is a
choice, not a
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Adam DePrince wrote:
On Tue, 2004-12-14 at 18:27, Roy Smith wrote:
Terry Reedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I did not really 'get' OOP until after learning Python. The
relatively simple but powerful user class model made more sense to
me than C++. So introducing
Daniel T. wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A paper finding that OOP can lead to more buggy software is at
http://www.leshatton.org/IEEE_Soft_98a.html
Sure, OOP *can* lead to more buggy software, that doesn't mean it always
does.
I think that costs(=time) to develop and maintain software depends
Daniel T. wrote:
Mr. Hatton suffers from the same problem that many OO critics suffer.
He thinks that the language choice decides whether the program
written is an OO program. I've seen plenty of very non-OO systems
written in OO languages, I've seen expert OO systems written in
non-OO
A paper finding that OOP can lead to more buggy software is at
http://www.leshatton.org/IEEE_Soft_98a.html
Les Hatton Does OO sync with the way we think?, IEEE Software, 15(3),
p.46-54
This paper argues from real data that OO based systems written in C++
appear to increase the cost of fixing
Steve Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Paul McGuire wrote:
Jive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
snip
But by '86, the Joy of OOP was widely known.
Widely known? Errr? In 1986, object-oriented programming was
barely
Paul McGuire wrote:
Steve Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[some stuff]
Good points all. And yes, I recall the BYTE article on Smalltalk. I guess
I was just reacting mostly to the OP's statement that by '86 the Joy of OOP
was widely known. He didn't say OOP all
Paul McGuire wrote:
Steve Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[some stuff]
Good points all. And yes, I recall the BYTE article on Smalltalk. I guess
I was just reacting mostly to the OP's statement that by '86 the Joy of OOP
was widely known. He didn't say OOP all
projecktzero wrote:
A co-worker considers himself old school in that he hasn't seen the
light of OOP ... He thinks that OOP has more overhead and is slower
than programs written the procedural way.
He may be right, but consider the alternatives.
Think of an integer. An integer is an object!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A paper finding that OOP can lead to more buggy software is at
http://www.leshatton.org/IEEE_Soft_98a.html
[snip description of paper that compares C++ versus Pascal or C]
What papers have scientific evidence for OOP?
That's of course a good question. I'm sure also that
Roy Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think the real reason Python is a better teaching language for
teaching OO concepts is because it just gives you the real core of OO:
inheritence, encapsulation, and association of functions with the data
they act on.
C++
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Instead of copy and paste, I use functions for code reuse. I didn't see
the light of OOP, yet. I use Python but never did anything with OOP. I
just can't see what can be done with OOP taht can't be done with
standart procedural programing.
There
projecktzero wrote:
A co-worker considers himself old school in that he hasn't seen the
light of OOP.(It might be because he's in love with Perl...but that's
another story.) He thinks that OOP has more overhead and is slower than
programs written the procedural way. I poked around google, but I
Jive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
snip
But by '86, the Joy of OOP was widely known.
Widely known? Errr? In 1986, object-oriented programming was barely
marketing-speak. Computing hardware in the mid-80's just wasn't up to the
task of dealing with OO memory and
projecktzero [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I know this might not be the correct group to post this, but I thought
I'd start here.
A co-worker considers himself old school in that he hasn't seen the
light of OOP.
Just how old *is* his school? I saw the light in
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
projecktzero [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I know this might not be the correct group to post this, but I thought
I'd start here.
A co-worker considers himself old school in that he hasn't seen the
light of OOP.(It might be because he's in love with Perl...but that's
Hello projecktzero,
A co-worker considers himself old school in that he hasn't seen the
light of OOP.(It might be because he's in love with Perl...but that's
another story.) He thinks that OOP has more overhead and is slower than
programs written the procedural way. I poked around google, but
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just can't see what can be done with OOP taht can't be done with
standart procedural programing.
Well, there's absolutely nothing you can do with OOP that
can't be done with standard procedural programming (SPP).
But that's hardly the point. After all, anything you can
projecktzero wrote:
A co-worker considers himself old school in that he hasn't seen the
light of OOP.(It might be because he's in love with Perl...but that's
another story.) He thinks that OOP has more overhead and is slower than
programs written the procedural way. I poked around google, but I
I did not really 'get' OOP until after learning Python. The relatively
simple but powerful user class model made more sense to me than C++. So
introducing someone to Python, where OOP is a choice, not a mandate, is how
*I* would introduce a procedural programmer to the subject. YMMV.
Terry
Paul McGuire wrote:
[snip]
I would characterize the 80's as the transitional decade from structured
programming (which really started to hit its stride when Djikstra published
Use of GOTO Considered Harmful) to OOP, and that OOP wasn't really
joyful until the early-to-mid 90's.
IMMEDIATE NOTICE TO
Mike Thompson none.by.e-mail wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Then came Brad Cox's book.
I read it.
Then there was Glockenspiel's C++ for PC in about '87 or '88.
I didn't PC in those days. I Unixed.
And, of course, cfont on unix from about, what, '85?
That's about when I got
Try comp.object.
John Roth
projecktzero [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I know this might not be the correct group to post this, but I thought
I'd start here.
A co-worker considers himself old school in that he hasn't seen the
light of OOP.(It might be because he's in
projecktzero wrote:
A co-worker considers himself old school in that he hasn't seen the
light of OOP.(It might be because he's in love with Perl...but that's
another story.) He thinks that OOP has more overhead and is slower than
programs written the procedural way. I poked around google, but I
On Mon, 2004-12-13 at 22:33, projecktzero wrote:
I know this might not be the correct group to post this, but I thought
I'd start here.
A co-worker considers himself old school in that he hasn't seen the
light of OOP.(It might be because he's in love with Perl...but that's
another story.)
On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 19:33:25 -0800, projecktzero wrote:
A co-worker considers himself old school in that he hasn't seen the
light of OOP.(It might be because he's in love with Perl...but that's
another story.) He thinks that OOP has more overhead and is slower than
programs written the
Craig Ringer wrote:
On Tue, 2004-12-14 at 16:02, Mike Thompson wrote:
I would pick the publication of Design Patterns in 1995 by the Gang of
Four (Gamma, Helm, Johnson, and Vlissides), to be the herald of when the
Joy of OOP would be widely known. DP formalized a taxonomy for many of
the
projecktzero wrote:
I know this might not be the correct group to post this, but I thought
I'd start here.
A co-worker considers himself old school in that he hasn't seen the
light of OOP.(It might be because he's in love with Perl...but that's
another story.) He thinks that OOP has more overhead
45 matches
Mail list logo
