> Without controlled experiments we cannot "establish" causation. Exactly my point. > However, citing things that work with OOP certainly disproves that OOP d

> Without controlled experiments we cannot "establish" causation. Exactly my point. > However, citing things that work with OOP certainly disproves that OOP doesn't work. Spaghetti code works too, you can make anything work. Question is if it works better. > all you did was make ever wilder claim I mean, do I really need to repeat what people have been saying for decades? http://harmful.cat-v.org/software/OO_programming/ http://harmful.cat-v.org/software/OO_programming/ > I gave the example of the WWW App. And I gave you the example of Starcraft, where the use of OOP actually slowed them down. And it had ever so slightly more than 5KLOC, so it's probably a better way to illustrate OOP's pitfalls. > NCSA Mosaic ... just copying something that already existed. Not familiar with Mosaic's history, but what you appear to be describing is porting an OO codebase to a non-OO codebase, which is not an easy feat. I know some OO codebases that are so tangled in various layers of inheritance and composition that it is only natural to be a lot of effort involved. And generally, porting isn't always a clear-cut affair; for example, straight ports from PCs to consoles are rarely straight, unless you're using a generic engine that will do that for you. > So if your point is that OO doesn't work, you have utterly and completely failed to make that point. No, my point was your argument by popularity is flawed, and you don't seem to have graped it. Read my original comment. > In fact, you just list projects that succeeded with OOP Even the author of that piece describes "the horror of the class hierarchy" and how OOP gave them a hard time. You can travel between cities with the handbreak on, but that doesn't mean you should. > "But you don't understand, these satellite launched despite the rockets" This analogy is so flawed I'm not going to even bother dissecting it, that's just lazy on your part. > here are productivity numbers: From where I gather we should all be using Haskell or something. > And you are reversing cause and effect. How do you think OOP became popular? C++, Java, marketing, marketing, marketing. > Try to back off the religion a little and look at actual evidence. Quite so. Show me evidence that OOP is better than other programming paradigms.