Bjarne Stroustrup is the creator of C++, one of the most widely used languages that allows object-oriented programming. He also authored The C++ Programming Language and The Design and Evolution of C++. Stroustrup is currently the head of AT&T Labs's large-scale programming research department in New Jersey. His research interests include distributed systems, operating systems, simulation, design, and programming.

LinuxWorld.com: Object-oriented languages have been around since the late 1960s. Yet, the object-oriented revolution took place more than two decades later. How do you explain this delay and which conclusions can we draw from it?

Bjarne Stroustrup: Part of the reason is that changes in people's behavior always take far more time than we are willing to believe. Another major reason is that some people had (and have) unreasonable expectations about "revolutions." The idea that there is one right way to solve essentially every problem for essentially every user is fundamentally wrong. I'm a great fan of the idea of object-oriented programming and the design ideals and techniques that it supports -- originating with Simula 67. However, those are not the only effective techniques. Much programming is best done with techniques that do not fall within a narrow definition of "object-oriented." And if you broaden the definition of "object-oriented" sufficiently for it not to be an obstacle to good programming and design, you get something that is basically meaningless. See my paper, "Why C++ isn't just an Object-Oriented Programming Language."

Yet, another reason is that people pushing "True OO" or "Pure OO" typically do so with languages and systems that impose enormous overheads for simple tasks compared to C and C++ code.

The conclusions that I drew (in 1980 or so) were that a general-purpose programming language must support multiple paradigms and that each paradigm must be supported well and with close-to-optimal runtime and space efficiencies. That said, I find that adoption of new ideas is seriously slowed by conservatism supported with myths of complexity and overheads.

Another problem is that many people, including many programmers, educators, and managers, are simply unwilling to face the complexities of software development. They dream of "silver bullets" and reject effective ideas because they are not perfect and not trivial to use by novices. This leads to real work being done using unnecessarily old languages, tools, and techniques while scarce resources are being squandered on a succession of fads. This underestimation of the problems also leads to every new "silver bullet" being too simplistic to address the rigors of real-world software development. And once something new has adapted to reality, it becomes vulnerable to criticism -- fair and not -- of complexity from the followers of the next "silver bullet."

To get back on a semitechnical note: I

• Email
• Print
• Share
  • Slashdot
  • Digg
  • Stumble
  • Reddit
  • Newsvine