Wow. Just stumbled upon the following quote and read the corresponding article.
> Programming language comparisons usually focus on the brevity and expressiveness of the language. If the solution to a programming problem has fewer lines and is “easier to understand” or “clearer” in one language than another, that is an argument for using the former over the latter. This comparison is useful if one supposes that the art of programming is primarily concerned with writing programs. It isn’t, of course. It is mostly concerned with debugging programs.
> In summary, then, every concept that object-orientation brings to the table makes debugging harder.
> If you believe (as I do) that the majority of effort a programmer expends is devoted to finding and fixing bugs, then an imperative programming approach will be more efficient (in programmer time) than an object-oriented approach.
Wow. Just stumbled upon the following quote and read the corresponding article.
> Programming language comparisons usually focus on the brevity and expressiveness of the language. If the solution to a programming problem has fewer lines and is “easier to understand” or “clearer” in one language than another, that is an argument for using the former over the latter. This comparison is useful if one supposes that the art of programming is primarily concerned with writing programs. It isn’t, of course. It is mostly concerned with debugging programs.
- https://codewords.hackerschool.com/issues/one/why-are-object...
> In summary, then, every concept that object-orientation brings to the table makes debugging harder. > If you believe (as I do) that the majority of effort a programmer expends is devoted to finding and fixing bugs, then an imperative programming approach will be more efficient (in programmer time) than an object-oriented approach.