proof of the benefits of OO?

Dennis de Champeaux ddc at netcom.com
Mon Nov 14 20:18:31 EST 1994

: > The comment that C++ or Fortran 90 code is inherently less buggy and harder 
: > to maintain than is C or Fortran 77 is at least unproved, and most likely
: > wrong.  

Wait a second: I assume you mean:
... inherently less buggy and easier to maintain than ...

:>  I'm old enough to have lived through several methodology shifts,
: > each claiming the same benefits that object oriented languages do now.
: > Nevertheless, the quality of a program still seems to come down to the
: > programmer's skill and little else. 

:    I am cross-posting this from bionet.software to comp.object.  Does
: someone have some references handy to refute the above claim?  Please
: respond by e-mail to me and to Mr. Mathog; an OO flame war (or even a
: structured programming flame war) would not be appropriate in 
: bionet.software.

: --
: misrael at scripps.edu			Mark Israel

There is a case study in Oopsla 92 by me and Al Anderson.  The project
used C, C++ as well as a bit of assembler.  Defect rate for C was industry
standard.  Defect rate of C++ was less than 50%.  Disclaimer "Although
these results are not statistically defensible ...", see page 377-391, and
390 especially.

Dennis de Champeaux                OntoOO              email: ddc at netcom.COM
Buss: 408 559 7264  Res: 408 559 9413  Fax: 408 371 2713  Page: 408 932 4645
Address: 14519 Bercaw Ln, San Jose, CA 95124

More information about the Bio-soft mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net