proof of the benefits of OO?
misrael at scripps.edu
Sat Nov 12 10:40:16 EST 1994
In article <7NOV199412022977 at seqvax.caltech.edu>, mathog at seqvax.caltech.edu (David Mathog) writes:
> Speaking as a harried system(s) manager, [...]
> I suggest that grant reviewers going through applications that include
> software development, make sure that the project employs the rules that are
> put forth below. It will save us all some money and insure that any tools
> developed are available to the largest number of users. [...]
> 1. It is written in ANSI C or Fortran 77 (but NOT both).
In article <11NOV199414105367 at seqvax.caltech.edu>, mathog at seqvax.caltech.edu (David Mathog) writes:
> The comment that C++ or Fortran 90 code is inherently less buggy and harder
> to maintain than is C or Fortran 77 is at least unproved, and most likely
> wrong. I'm old enough to have lived through several methodology shifts,
> each claiming the same benefits that object oriented languages do now.
> Nevertheless, the quality of a program still seems to come down to the
> programmer's skill and little else.
I am cross-posting this from bionet.software to comp.object. Does
someone have some references handy to refute the above claim? Please
respond by e-mail to me and to Mr. Mathog; an OO flame war (or even a
structured programming flame war) would not be appropriate in
misrael at scripps.edu Mark Israel
More information about the Bio-soft