> ... 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 pointer
"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 system
[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.4
> From: "Jive" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just how old *is* his school? I saw the light in the 70's. For those
> of
> you too young to remember, those were menacing and sinister days, when
> pant
> legs were too wide at the bottom, and the grotesque evil of "top down
> programming" was on t
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 car
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
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
N
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 w
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Imagine, for instance, what if he wants to egosurf, google for his own
name and finds nothing because everybody was saying Djikstra all the
time? That'd be terrible!
Fortunately, not in our time stream :
Dijkstra - 892 000 hits
Djikstra - 5 500 hits
"Edsger Dijkstra" - 25
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 langu
Alex Stapleton wrote:
To canadians there is no "outside" of hockey games.
Some Canadians aren't so fanatical about hockey, or any sport.
For example, I've still never figured out how "conversions" work...
or switch-hitters.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
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... ;)
"Gregor Horvath" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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 sof
On Thu, 2004-12-16 at 18:23, 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... ;)
When I
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
--
http://mail.
"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
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.
The problem with OOP is not o
Steve Holden wrote:
They're all dreadful liars, these Scandinavians ;-)
So, you're saying they are not very good at lying?
(And be careful what you say about Scandinavians. I may
have to bring my axe to the next PyCon... "You! Where
is your payment voucher! Thwack! Everybody line up
here and d
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 spe
Dave Benjamin wrote:
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++.
"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
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 devel
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 thi
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++.
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
> > choic
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. S
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.
The
Peter Hansen wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Paul McGuire wrote:
"Martijn Faassen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
Yikes! (or better, "Jikes!" or even "Yijkes!"?) - my bad.
And he was on faculty at UT right here in Austin, too.
It's a very common mistake I've seen so often that for a while I
Responding to Beliavsky...
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 either C or Pascal. It
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Paul McGuire wrote:
"Martijn Faassen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
Yikes! (or better, "Jikes!" or even "Yijkes!"?) - my bad.
And he was on faculty at UT right here in Austin, too.
It's a very common mistake I've seen so often that for a while I
wondered whether his
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 l
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 H
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
binL9yPfo4Fv5.bin
Description: application/pgp-encrypted
msg.asc
Description: Binary data
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
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 w
"[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.
projecktzero wrote:
> He thinks that OOP has more overhead
I think he's just confusing programming with marriage.
--
CARL BANKS
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
"Paul McGuire" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> I was just reacting mostly to the OP's statement that "by '86 the Joy of
OOP
> was widely known".
I (Jive Dadson) said that. I guess I figured that if I knew about it, it
was widely known. But in retrospect, I had an i
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> 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 w
"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 Harmf
"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.
[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 com
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
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 mandate, is how *I* would introduce a procedura
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
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 objec
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 d
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 "OO
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 "OO
"Steve Holden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Paul McGuire wrote:
>
> > "Jive" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
> >
> >>But by '86, the Joy of OOP was widely known.
> >>
> >
> >
> > "Widely known"? Errr? In 1986, "object-orien
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 de
[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 ca
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
On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 19:33:25 -0800, projecktzero wrote:
> We do web programming. I suspect that OO apps would behave as good as
> procedural apps, and you'd get the benefit of code reuse if you do it
> properly. Code reuse now consists of cutting and pasting followed by
> enough modification that I
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 heuri
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 t
"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
"Jive" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> 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
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 d
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
Paul McGuire wrote:
"Jive" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
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 h
Hello,
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.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pytho
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 p
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 st
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 d
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
"Mike Thompson" 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 it. I us
It goes something like this (re-hashed a little):
"Every program of any complexity written in a procedural language will have a
[half-assed] implementation of object oriented design."
On Monday 13 December 2004 07:33 pm, projecktzero wrote:
> I know this might not be the correct group to post th
Paul McGuire wrote:
"Jive" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
69 matches
Mail list logo
