Another nice Lahman quote:
"OTOH, the sad truth is that one could paraphrase G. B. Shaw's comment on Christianity: The only problem with OO development it that it has never been tried. There is a lot of really lousy OO software around because people converting from procedural development started coding in OOPLs right away and just mapped procedural practices onto it."
In other words, it doesn't work because I'm doing it wrong?
I think it means - "even it works, you're probably doing it wrong."
You are not alone - the good Dr thinks that *everyone* is doing it wrong
in theory ...
Not *everyone* by any means. See my review at http://www.amazon.com/Model-Based-Development-Applications-H-S-Lahman/dp/0321774078
for a notable example. Rob has it it pretty much on the money. Just because it works, doesn't mean it has been done right. But, one needs a reference base of being done right to have a baseline.
Hunh? This guy must be living in a time warp. Pretty sure the theory around OO programming was thoroughly explored with the development of Smalltalk 30-40 years ago. It wasn't even the first language to use "objects" - Simula did it way back in 1967.
I seriously doubt this guy has discovered anything new about OO programming that has not been both thought of and tried before.
Abe, I'm afraid that the weight of experience is not on your side here. H.S. Lahman was there then ... in fact, the opening part of his book ( http://www.cintegrity.com/Lahman ) is a brief, but very insightful, history of the development of the OO mentality and the ideas which preceded it.