Mozilla, License (again), PPG, GPGME

[Arno Wagner]

> >     * (What's wrong with OO? - no answer required :). )
> 
> It needs to be done right and frankly OO is far older than what Brooch
> claims to have invented.  The IEEE Software had a good article on the
> disadvantage of several OO approaches (look for something like "Why OO
> does not sync with our thinking" about 2 years old)

Just for the record that is 

    Does OO sync with how we think?
    Hatton, L.
    IEEE Software , Volume: 15 Issue: 3 , May-June 1998
    Page(s): 46 -54

Can be downloaded from 
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/lpdocs/epic03/EarlierIssue.HTM?punumber=52&isyr=1998
You might have to be an IEEE member to do so.

Personally I don't agree with the conclusions. The Article is mainly
based on C++. There are far better OO languages, e.g. Eiffel, that
may change the situation drastically. Personally I kept running
into limitations, non-orthogonalities and plain stupid implementation
of OO features when dealing with C++. Some things, like the protection
model, are also far too complicated. Multiple inheritance with its
property that the first implementation encounterd in compiling 
makes it into the final functionality is just wrong, silly and
dangerous. And there ist the problem that it is very easy to mix 
OO and non-OO styles and end up with a completely unusable pice of 
code...

Numerous other problems make C++ an bad candidate to judge the 
merits of OO languages on it.

Regards,
Arno
-- 
Arno Wagner, Communication Systems Group, ETH Zuerich, wagner@tik.ee.ethz.ch
GnuPG:  ID: 1E25338F  FP: 0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C  0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F

A modern US Navy cruiser now requires 26 tons of manuals. This is enough to 
affect the vessel's performance.   -- New Scientist on the paperless office