Content deleted Content added
→Criticism: Added comment by Bob Martin |
Citation bot (talk | contribs) Add: s2cid. | Use this bot. Report bugs. | Suggested by BrownHairedGirl | #UCB_webform 108/162 |
||
Line 298:
{{quote|The problem with object-oriented languages is they've got all this implicit environment that they carry around with them. You wanted a banana but what you got was a gorilla holding the banana and the entire jungle.}}
A study by Potok et al. has shown no significant difference in productivity between OOP and procedural approaches.<ref>{{Cite journal| url=http://www.csm.ornl.gov/~v8q/Homepage/Papers%20Old/spetep-%20printable.pdf| title=Productivity Analysis of Object-Oriented Software Developed in a Commercial Environment| last=Potok| first=Thomas|author2=Mladen Vouk |author3=Andy Rindos |journal=Software: Practice and Experience | volume=29|issue=10|pages=833–847 |year=1999 |access-date=21 April 2010| doi=10.1002/(SICI)1097-024X(199908)29:10<833::AID-SPE258>3.0.CO;2-P| s2cid=57865731}}</ref>
[[Christopher J. Date]] stated that critical comparison of OOP to other technologies, relational in particular, is difficult because of lack of an agreed-upon and rigorous definition of OOP;<ref name="DatePage650">C. J. Date, Introduction to Database Systems, 6th-ed., Page 650</ref> however, Date and Darwen have proposed a theoretical foundation on OOP that uses OOP as a kind of customizable [[data type|type system]] to support [[RDBMS]].<ref name="ThirdManifesto">C. J. Date, Hugh Darwen. ''Foundation for Future Database Systems: The Third Manifesto'' (2nd Edition)</ref>
| |||