Mail Archives: djgpp/1997/05/31/16:20:57
On Sat, 31 May 1997 16:23:36 +0100 Chris Croughton <crough45 AT amc DOT de>
writes:
>Just like the academics tried to tell us Lisp was the best thing
>since sliced bananas, or Pascal...
Can you tell me where to get sliced bananas?
>> You see, when a team of twenty people start to work on a massive
>> program, a procedure oriented language simply ***will not work***.
>
>Oh dear. I guess I'd better resign from all those C projects I've
>been on, then. Can I have your real name so I can quote you as a
>reason to abandon the projects?
You probably could have gotten my name from the mail header, but if
you can't, I'm Mark Logan.
Maybe I should have been more specific. Just because there's a bunch
of people on your team doesn't mean you can't use a procedure oriented
language. I was a bit hasty on that one. But software can eventually
reach
a level of complexity where you traditional procedure oriented techniques
start to show serious flaws. Of course, if you are writing a program
that
is meant to model a procedure, such as a 3d engine, then procedure
oriented
is your best choice no matter what the size. When it comes to modeling
object behavior, like weather simulators, object oriented design becomes
essential.
BTW, the stuff I've been saying is just what I've been reading, I'm not
actually
a professional or anything. I'd be interested in getting an opinion from
someone
with a degree in CS.
>For a lot of problems modular programming has no problems as long as
>you are disciplined. But if you're not disciplined then your team
>will have problems whatever your system, objects and classes won't
>save you.
I never meant to suggest that it would. Software teams who use object
oriented
programming techniques usually define how there system is going to be set
up
before they ever touch a keyboard.
fwec AT juno DOT com
- Raw text -