One of those cases where I agree with James Giles:
> The claim that inheritance-based code improves productivity
> is so common that I usually don't respond to it. There's never
> been any objective evidence to support the claim that objective
> coding is more productive. That's not been from lack of looking.
> There are people (say, in the ACM) who would jump through
> hoops to find verifiable evidence that inheritance is productive,
> but no such luck. I think the increased abstraction usually
> serves more to confuse than to help.
Leslie Hatton wrote an article some time ago, in IEE Software, entitled
"Does OO Sync with the Way We Think?" In it, he concludes that Object-
Oriented programming is in fact anti-productive. He admits near the end
that he wasn't able to distinguish between intrinsically object-oriented
facilities, and quirks of C++.
See http://www.cs.kent.ac.uk/pubs/1997/761/ for a BiBTeX reference.
--
Van Snyder | What fraction of Americans believe
[log in to unmask] | Wrestling is real and NASA is fake?
Any alleged opinions are my own and have not been approved or disapproved
by JPL, CalTech, NASA, Sean O'Keefe, George Bush, the Pope, or anybody else.
|