On Friday 15 April 2005 11:50 am, synthetoonz@bellsouth.net wrote:
Many would disagree and consider it a myth that OO is more maintanable. There are few proofs outside of the limited scope of GUI code that shed positive light on the OO philosophy.
Procedural code is no more likely to create "monoliths" than OO. In fact, surveying the memory map of many OO developed applications would tend to make one believe the purpose of OO is to produce massive, resource-hogging monoliths. In the C world there is an old and established concept called libraries. Any well written library means your C program doen't have to re-invent the wheel. One should take a look at FORTH, or at least Charles Moore's writings. Using already existing tested code has long been a good programming practice. This is why we have standard libraries in C (libc), and C++(stdc++, STL).
Bad, lazy programmers are the source of security holes regardless of language. I generally agree with this, but not all security holes are caused by bad and lazy programmers. A lot of times, there are some risks in code because the programmer has not forseen it. One real problem in the industry, and has been since Grace Hopper found the first bug, is the lack of proper testing. I have rarely seen a situation where a proper design-code-unit-test-test cycle has been effectively utilized. I've also seen many programmers who don't have a clue how to test. But, I've also seen some people who can take a well designed and tested application, and find bugs immediately. -- Jerry Feldman
Boston Linux and Unix user group http://www.blu.org PGP key id:C5061EA9 PGP Key fingerprint:053C 73EC 3AC1 5C44 3E14 9245 FB00 3ED5 C506 1EA9