Skip to main content
8 events
when toggle format what by license comment
May 23, 2017 at 12:37 history edited CommunityBot
replaced http://stackoverflow.com/ with https://stackoverflow.com/
Apr 12, 2017 at 7:31 history edited CommunityBot
replaced http://programmers.stackexchange.com/ with https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/
Sep 10, 2015 at 16:52 comment added vonbrand Anecdote warning: If a problem is smallish (e.g. up to around 500-1000 lines of code), OOP makes no difference in my experience, it might even get in the way by having to worry about stuff that makes very little difference. If the problem is large, and has some form of "interchangeable pieces" that moreover must be possible to add later on (windows in a GUI, devices in an operating system, ...) the organization OOP discipline provides is unavoidable. You certainly can program OOP without language support (see e.g. the Linux kernel).
Mar 27, 2014 at 23:05 comment added babou I have respect for experimental studies. There is however the issue of ascertaining that they address the right questions. There are too many variables in what may be called OOP, and in ways of using it, for a single study to be meaningful, imho. Like many things in programming, OOP was created by experts to meet their own needs. When discussing the usefulness of OOP (which I did not take as the OP's topic, which is rather whether it addresses a shortcoming of procedural programming), one may ask: what feature, for whom, for what purpose? Then only do field studies become fully meaningful.
Mar 27, 2014 at 21:56 history edited vzn CC BY-SA 3.0
added 19 characters in body
Mar 27, 2014 at 21:51 history edited vzn CC BY-SA 3.0
added 58 characters in body
Mar 27, 2014 at 21:45 history edited vzn CC BY-SA 3.0
added 133 characters in body
Mar 27, 2014 at 21:40 history answered vzn CC BY-SA 3.0