Radovan links to and has high praise for a presentation by Steve Jones. I guess you had to be there … anyway, I simply can’t resist attacking one of my favorite pet peeves: the idea that OO was and is successful because “objects model things from the real world”. In my former job I interviewed close to a hundred job applicants (in two years, as opposed to about 20 in the past six years); one of my routine questions was “How would you explain OO?”
Anyone answering with the standard real-world boilerplate had a hard time finding a good answer why, in this respect, an “Order” class should be in any way different from an Order struct in C or an Order table in an RDBMS …
OO successful because objects represent real-world things? You mean, like, files, application windows, linked lists?
Bullshit.
I think i agree with you. Yet, I might be missing your point. Do you mean to say that OO never does a good job of representing real world things? Or do you mean that people don’t use OO properly to get what they need from the software, in order to represent real world things? I take it you beleive that OO isn’t the only thing that can represent real world things and the OO isn’t successful anymore than RDBMS or C is.