From: Paul Lutus <nospam@...>
Date: 2006-10-21T15:15:05+09:00
Subject: Re: Ruby and Perl

Squeamizh wrote:

> 
> Paul Lutus wrote:
>> At this point, someone might ask what is the point, then? Why have
>> objects? The answer is that some programming problems are sufficiently
>> complex that either it is not possible to write a reliable program
>> without using OO principles, or a particular program can't be written at
>> all using conventional, pre-OO methods.
> 
> Such as... ?

1. The next version of Windows, the one that Microsoft had intended to
write, but gave up on, in spite of the billions of dollars in potential
profits. Part of the reason is the well-documented cowboy coder culture at
Microsoft, and part of it results from the poorly structured code in
present-day Windows.

2. The crime statistic database that the FBI would love to write, spent
US$170 million dollars trying to write, but failed to write.

3. The replacement code for the FAA's traffic control system, which they
spent many millions developing, only to give up on and revert to their old
code and machines.

Many similar stories. Dozens.

Obviously when I say that such a program can't be written without using OO
methods, this is a bit hyperbolic, since these are all examples of programs
that can be written in principle, but with budget and time constraints, it
is often not possible in practice.

-- 
Paul Lutus
http://www.arachnoid.com