From: Paul Lynch <paul@...>
Date: 2006-10-21T18:30:22+09:00
Subject: Re: Ruby and Perl

On 21 Oct 2006, at 07:15, Paul Lutus wrote:

> 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.

Add to that virtually any government funded large project.

However, I suspect that the poster was looking for examples of  
projects that had failed by non-OO methods, but succeeded with OO.

Paul