Oberon-2
>>That is the case for programmers who do not comprehend and correctly apply
the paradigm, just as it was the case with structured programming when things
moved from "software as art" mode to "software as science" in the late 60's.<<
The trouble with software as science is that it remains an art in exactly the
same way as literature.
Wayne, I have a problem with you! I even like your arguments! The trouble is, I
think, that you speak more like an idealist. I have programmed more or less
continously for seventeen years now. I have made horrible errors and I still
do. HOWEVER! nearly all my errors are due to typing mistakes (I don't speak for
my first year or so). I don't know whoever said it first, but I consider it
true: EVERY more or less big program contains several errors. Most of the time
this is no problem for a program but, as far I am concerned it is a problem if
you are speaking about a programming language!
The one thing no theory I know of takes into account are just plain, human
typing errors. Even if I didn't want it, bringing up this fact, has forced me
to ridiculize a few professors at a small university here in Brussels. The
reactions showed that people understood what I was saying but I was embarrassed
in their place.
>>It is not a natural outcome of OO as you suggest.<<
From what I wrote I think you will understand I didn't want to suggest that OO
CAUSES trouble. I affirm however that logic clearly dictates that OO-based
languages ARE more buggy than other, much simpler, languages.
Bart Van Bockstaele at 100574.2352@compuserve.com
… On AutoPilot and Amiga all the way from Belgium NOT from Mars!…