>>Agree with this; but it should be moderated by having better troubleshooting tools these days, and OOP is supposed to reduce the frequency of errors.
>
>What evidence do you have that OOP does not reduce the frequency of errors? A newbie using OOP is going to produce MORE errors, but I've found that my own errors are much easier to fix using OOP. Coding errors, that is. Design errors are another matter altogether.

I think OOP does reduce the frequency of errors; that was my point: that although software is very complicated now, and we can expect more errors statistically, OOP will temper that by helping us reduce errors, find them, and fix them.

>
>>I hear a lot of complaints from my low-end friends about the frustrations of having their PC's crash because of "good enough software". This is the attitude that really frustrates me, because it is so unprofessional.
>
>I was around in the days of the first PCs and mainframes. Software has always had bugs, as has hardware. IMO, software and hardware are much more usable than they were 20 years ago. Yes, there are errors and there are more of them. However, there is more software and the errors aren't anywhere near as catastrophic.