"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 when you use the > >>most technically deficient of all the OOPLs. (If those developers had > >>used Smalltalk, I'll bet their defect rates would have been > >>substantially lower even if they weren't very good OO developers.) > > > > > > Careful, the paper never claims that C++ produced more defects than C or > > Pascal. It only claims that the defects found in the C++ program were > > more costly to fix. That is a very big difference. > > You're right. That's what I get for responding from memory of my > original reading of the paper. The mind is the second thing to go. > If it claims there are more defects in C++ than in C, then I am more than willing to believe it, I would struggle to get a 3 line c++ program to compile let alone run.
The leap that equates C++ to OOP, and C to SP would seem to be tenuous though. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
