Fill This Form To Receive Instant Help
Fill This Form To Receive Instant Help
Homework answers / question archive / Mr
Mr. Oldie wants to share his wisdom too, but on a different topic: "These OO-guys looked at hardware assembly and car assembly mechanisms and dreamed that they can do it in software. They aimed for the moon using OO paradigm, but they ended up in clouds! OOD/OOP does not really make such "stand-alone" components that fit together that easily. Look at C++ definitions like friend which enables you to muck around base object contents, etc. which is not the case with Hardware or Cars". Does Oldie make any sense? Did OOD/OOP meet the predictions? Feel free to research the internet. However, you should write a few sentences in your own words.
The expressiveness power of a language is measured by means it provides for development. One of the most important objectives of any programming language is to simulate real life applications (for which the language is created) as closely as possible using available/supported means (language concepts). OOP languages offer extremely powerful paradigm (classes, polymorhism, inheritance, encapsulation, easy reusability via classes etc.) for developers: first time the developers have means which enable them to simulate real-life applications more closely than before.
However, this does not mean that the developers cannot create faulty applications using OOP languages. No language can prevent developers from writing faulty applications - it is up to developers how to take advantage of available means in the language to create more robust applications. OOP languages simply give the developers more freedom in choosing ways of implementations - that is it. By skillfully applying those ways the developers can develop faster and more robust applications - because OOP tools are more close to real-life concepts than the tools in older programming languages.
