It is interesting to think that there are those who think that all code can be OO!
I don't think I said that.
When you are actually programming in the heart of the computer, OO may not really apply. As an example OO would be good for writing a program for an extremity, like clipping your fingernails, but open heart surgery can be a little more deadly
I have know idea what you are talking about. True, there are times that speed is the utmost importance that might require call outs to assembly or other language code. This is usually the case for low level/system level programming. It should still be wrapped. Unfortunately, the majority of code written is high level GUI/data management. Or at least the code that crashes.
Additionally, OO is in itself more 'codey' than 'machine' language because it usually handles more event types.
Are we talking about the same thing? OO = Object Oriented programming
As for the industry, OO works well for developing application programs which require and use many recursive routines.
That is a structure design paridigm and should not be used the same way in OO.
OO is the only way that code can be managed by many programmers in industry. Before, when code changed, and the original programmer was not available, it took a long time for another to learn the code and fix or patch the program. In order to be efficient in industry OO is used not because of its resource efficiency but it manpower efficiency.
I don't know what world you live in but programmers are usually NEVER around for support. If they are, I would be wary of that person's credentials. Were you the one who wrote all that Cobol code and forgot to make the year date field char(4) instead of char(2)?
The biggest problem with structure design is that it is not adaptable to change. Change = Spaghetti code. Spaghetti code = errors. Errors = core dump = Microsoft.
Quality for me is a big reason for OO, IMHO.
But then we have cloning. Don't change the code - clone it! I could go on but it would sound like a class.
In the beginning, nobody had the computing power we enjoy today, and the OO code in comparison is really 'bloated'. Look at the size of some of the source code that is required to generate the final product. The old systems would 'barf' on files this size. I wrote a program that resides in 65K, that same program in WINDOWS is OO and 300K, the source files are about 5M. Talk OO, talk BLOAT.
Newer compilers have optimized that. I think the Java compiler poops out some pretty thin stuff. Of course, your code has a lot to do with it.
As for NT's size, it is directly proportional to the work that it has to perform. You know that a program that writes "HI" on the screen was significantly easier to write and debug, than the program that launches a space shuttle! Are you calling the space shuttle launch program 'bloated' or 'complex'.
Us geeks call it "Hello World" program now. Again, I don't understand your point? Is MS saying NT is as complicated as the space shuttle? Funny, that is the exact same thing our marketing groupies were telling the RBOCs in 91 when the switch software was 12 million lines and core dumping left and right. "Oh, it is second only to the space shuttle in complexity".
Now, that software is 40 million plus. Actually, it is only about 5 mill, it is just cloned about 8 times. New feature? Clone it. At least we have somewhat of an excuse, our loads include the OS and all the application/features that run on it!
They actually tell our customers about our "cross-threaded" technology that runs the switch. Spaghetti and meatballs.
Mr. B |
