Recent Changes - Search:

PmWiki

pmwiki.org

edit SideBar

HattonOO

Main.HattonOO History

Hide minor edits - Show changes to output

Changed lines 21-23 from:
belief that this would hinder future code development and maintenance
to:
belief that this would hinder future code development and maintenance

NAT 2/2/2013
Added lines 1-21:
!!Does OO Sync with How We Think?
!L. Hatton, IEEE Software, pp46-54, May/june 1998.

When object oriented programming was first introduced to the
computer science community it was welcomed with a wave of enthusiasm.
Many claims were made regarding the expected benefits of languages
such as C++, including code re-use, ease (and speed) of software
development, power of the language, etc. Much of this was accepted
and duplicated as arguments in lecture courses across the world.

This papers describes tests which establish the
purported benefits with regard to code maintenance
using data obtained over several years during development and
maintenance of two equivalent pieces of software. The results
contradict the accepted wisdom, yet can be explained by some
rather obvious arguments.

I'm told by the author that this paper had a rough ride with the
(many) reviewers. This paper, and our belief of it's validity, is
the reason we have not re-coded our software in C++. It is our
belief that this would hinder future code development and maintenance
Edit - History - Print - Recent Changes - Search
Page last modified on February 07, 2013, at 11:56 AM