proof of the benefits of OO?

Mark Israel 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 
bionet.software.

--
misrael at scripps.edu			Mark Israel




More information about the Bio-soft mailing list