CompuServe Messages

>Your point is very clear however, it still points out that OOPS tends to >the "elegant" and not the "clear". Sure, black boxes that do what you want >them to are very nice but, they don't tell you what's going on if you need >to figure out what someone else has written or give you any idea where to >find out. I don't understand: are all your programs nothing but sequential mainline code? I'm seeing a trend in these last few messages to credit/blame OO for traits which, while it does have them, that it only has. IMO, it isn't the only thing to have them. Further, if the task is not to bubblize as much as possible for isolating functionality/etc, what is the task? > (IMHO) I like the concepts of OOPS languages but, I dread the >day when I have to figure out where the documentation is for all those >"black boxes" happens to be, for some 10's of thousands of users who >cannot get to what they need and the original programmer has been canned >to save $$$$. I can only repeat my statements above. I can't tell you how many non-OO project I've done under such conditions. This is NO special trait of OO. If anything, it can be argued that classes are more self-documenting, and as things are being allow to be fundamentally bubblized, there is no hunting for things. Blah blah. Anyway, lack of documentation is lack of documentation. If, as in John's examples, it is not documented what add() does, no matter what the paradigm, I can only but guess what add() does (even under the best design and the best named function).