Re: Emperor's new clothes - ACM followup.

[Jim Davies <Jim.Davies@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

   I think Jim and Andrzej both missed Dyke's point. Of course tools like
   OO have their value IN RESTRICTED AREAS: for instance, OO is excellent
   (apparently) for point-and-click menu applications with lots of 
   screens. It was a "tool to manipulate data" that bollixed it. 

In restricted areas?  The greater moiety, as far as I'm concerned.  

If you don't know where you're going, then Perl is an excellent way
forward.  If you have (and/or need) a plan, or a map, then only a
structured (don't misread that word) approach will do.  

   OO is so knowledge-centralized that using it on any assembly of 
   truly independent components tends to suffocate the project in
   complexity. 

Proper use of encapsulation and abstraction will do the trick every
time (almost by definition).   Add in the courage to refactor, and the
knowledge of when to throw something away, plus some project
management.  

              I have been involved in at least two projects that
   ground to a halt this way (one was revived in C, the other in
   Perl). A data flow design with truly independent (running) 
   components is not only quickly completed, but also documents itself
   for the developer entering 6 months later (I'm doing exactly this
   at the moment). Because all information passes through channels
   instead of hierarchies.

You're really not talking about the base (OO) technology at all, but
its (possibly misguided and unskilled) application.    

x Jim