>>i'd tend to agree w/ Arnon. if you're finding that OO doesn't improve your reusability rate, you're not building your objects correctly...
>
>Dave,
>
>With all due respect this is one of the weakest arguments used
>by proponents of OO. Together with statements like 'Progammers
>too stupid for OO' and 'Older programmers (Dinosaurs?) may have
>a hard time understanding what OO is about'.
>
>Mind you, I am not taking it personnally. All I'm saying is
>that OO as an approach is not a panacea for all that has to
>do with computer systems, and the fact that one can
>create 'bad objects' can hardly be taken as good argument in
>favour of OO, rather to the contrary. It's a bit like the
>history of Soviet Russia and Marxism, or is that taking the
>analogy too far? Well, unconditionality is unconditionality
>whatever the area to which it is applied.
>
>Marc

thanks. i've spent the last month attempting to clean up and make functional someone's first attempt at OO programming -- i've spent MUCH too much time staring at poorly designed objects wondering what was going through their heads. it's been a long, strange trip (and i'm afraid it's really only just beginning...)

i wouldn't say that OO is the panacea, but if you've got a good handle on it, it does make life easier. of course if you (or your group) don't, give it up already and save yourself some trouble...