clipka wrote:
> Docman? Javadoc?

Were that helpful, it might fit the bill. :-)  As it stands now, it seems 
more often an excuse to not write documentation than a tool for writing it.

>  > To avoid security problems?
> I guess this would require a proper definition of "security problems".

Code doing things the author didn't want it to do because malicious people 
intentionally caused it to happen.

>  > To get multiple people interacting on one code base?
> You mean, something like version management built into the language?

I don't know. If I knew, I wouldn't be throwing these things out as "this is 
what we don't have yet."  I think there's more to having multiple people 
working on a code base than "don't clobber each others changes."

Stuff like the ability for me to know that my change hurt your code. 
Something like unit testing, only built into the language, say.

>  > Or the perennially favorite, "reusable code"?
> 
> I think practice has shown that the benefit of core reuse is limited to 
> some standard classes: Container libraries; GUI frameworks; stuff like 
> that.

To some extent, but why is that?  Is it because we're missing something 
fundamentally obvious in the programming paradigm?  Clearly an OO library is 
helpful when you have something that behaves like objects. But you try to 
interface it to something that behaves like (say) SQL records, and you get 
all kinds of ugly mismatches.

> But it appears to me that as far as libraries are concerned, OOP has 
> been a tremendous success regarding code re-use.

Ehn, to some extent. How many of the libraries you use would work just as 
well without OO, or with faked OO (like C's stdio fakes OO)?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message