I was just speaking generally. One of my major programming languages is Ada, and I doubt anyone would say that isn't big on provability. I've used objects a couple times, in places where they do in fact help, but those cases are, in general, not read properly. Using an object in the wrong place, which is most places, does lead to worse code. For most people, using the wrong tool for the wrong job is foolish, but for OOP lovers...
The question isn't how do you prove it does reduce static provability, but how do you prove it does not. I can cite mathematical proof that the sun revolves around the earth, but we all know that's not true. That being said, there are studies out there about using the wrong paradigm for the wrong job, objects do come up. > -----Original Message----- > From: 9fans-boun...@9fans.net [mailto:9fans-boun...@9fans.net] On Behalf Of > Jack Johnson > Sent: Friday, April 16, 2010 1:05 PM > To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs > Subject: Re: [9fans] TeX: hurrah! > > On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 8:47 AM, Patrick Kelly <kameo76...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Object-Orientation reduces static provability. > > True (or true enough)? > > Not to engender a flame war, but my gut says there must be some Eiffel, > Smalltalk, and LISP folk out there who are big on provability, > but I can imagine that there's a case out there for saying not all OO > implementations are the same. > > Is this a Gödel question? How do you prove OO reduces static provability? > > I'm totally OK with a "true enough" response like the measured complexity > introduced makes it more problematic to determine static > provability (as I talk out my ass). > > -Jack
