We should not underestimate the suc- cess. David Taylor wrote in “Software [R]evolution: A Roundtable” (Computer, A Really May 1999, p. 50) that “by the year 2000 no one would talk about objects any more Component and Object Technology because the technology would be so thor- oughly absorbed into the mainstream that Good Idea no one would think to mention it.” His time frame may be premature by a few Bertrand Meyer, ISE years but absorption is definitely the trend. All major developments in the software world integrate OO aspects or at least claim to do so. Almost all recent pro- gramming languages are OO in some s this is the final installment of ways; even good old Fortran, in its latest the Component and Object version, has some timid support for data Technology column, I will try abstraction. This may be what Al Davis’s to come back to the source, consulting clients really mean: We know A object-oriented development, all about objects, don’t bother us with this. and reflect on its contribution and future. But it’s a sign of success, not rejection. Wise people have at various times pre- dicted or even announced the end of IT’S THE ONLY GAME IN TOWN objects. As early as 1989 (see Scott Whatever reservations anyone may Guthery, “Are the Emperor’s New have about some or another aspect of Clothes Object-Oriented?” Dr. Dobb’s Don’t blame OO current object technology, it is still true Journal, Dec. 1989, p. 80), articles were programming in general that, as Grady Booch noted a few years appearing on the “object winter” theme, for the limitations of ago, we don’t really know any better; patterned after the “AI winter” reported those who don’t know when it comes to building complex, evo- to have followed the initial excitement how to apply the lutionary, mission-critical systems, OO over artificial intelligence. The theme has principles. solutions are our best bet. Nothing else gained new vigor in the past few months. has come to challenge them. In Software Development (July 1999, Nothing, not even component-based p. 33), a review by Alan Zeichik of development. As has been clear in this Clemens Szyperski’s Component Soft- word ‘object.’ Now, none do, and I find column, with all my enthusiasm for com- ware book states: “Whether we like it or that clients are much happier when they ponent-based development, leading in not, in most situations object-oriented don’t.” He follows this with a final blow: particular to the column’s broadening of programming has not succeeded in fos- “I think ‘object’ has now gone the way scope last year (from “Object Tech- tering code reuse, except in the most lim- of ‘structured.’” nology” to “Component and Object ited way.” The comparison with structured pro- Technology”) and to the special section Recently, IEEE Software has been the gramming is appropriate: In the case of on CBD (co-edited with Christine place of choice for death notices, with structured programming, too, a set of Mingins, in last July’s issue of Com- such pronouncements by former editor- simple but profound conceptual princi- puter), I find absurd the claim that (in in-chief Al Davis as “We are all now wit- ples enjoyed partial success, a passage of Alan Zeichik’s phrase) “objects are tired, nessing the fall of the Object era” some of the ideas into the fabric of daily components are wired.” Components, to (“Predictions and Farewell,” July/Aug. software development to the point of misquote Clausewitz, are just the pursuit 1998, pp. 6-9). In his final interview (“A becoming so obvious that many practi- of objects through other means. Com- Golden Thread in Software’s Tapestry,” tioners do not realize that the ideas were ponents assume object technology, they Nov./Dec. 1998, pp. 18-21) he says, once new and controversial; in addition use object technology, and they promote “When I started consulting ten years ago, to this success, these conceptual princi- object technology. all my customers wanted to hear the ples suffered a form of degradation, com- Every one of the currently prominent ing in part from the transfer of the name CBD approaches is directly rooted in Editor: Bertrand Meyer, Interactive “structured” to denote mere graphical objects, be it CORBA, Enterprise Java- Software Engineering, ISE Bldg., 2nd Fl., conventions for describing system struc- Beans, or COM with its direct reliance 270 Storke Rd., Goleta, CA 93117; voice tures, useful in themselves but a far cry on the Vtables of C++. (805) 685-6869; [email protected] from the intellectual discipline of the One can understand the buzz-of-the- original ideas. year phenomenon, if only as a way for 144 Computer consultants to renew their claims to exper- of object technology, and, more gener- anyone chosen 02 as a pivot?) will be the tise. We in the software field don’t have ally, many of the principles of modern opportunity for a mini-Y2K. preseason sales and postseason discounts, programming methodology. There is no excuse for such nonsense. so we need ever new ways to drum up It passes on to our successors the same business. There’s nothing wrong with that; THE NEXT 99 SOFTWARE DISASTERS calamity that our predecessors (in some let’s just not take it too seriously. Perhaps the most striking example of cases ourselves) inflicted on us. But they David Taylor, in the roundtable cited what we still have to learn is the success at least had the excuse that it was the first above, noted that “Even Object Magazine of the so-called windowing Y2K tech- time, that no one knew, and that we were changed its name to Component Software nique. I don’t have any actual statistics, all learning. This time there is no such to maintain its cutting edge.” That was but informal inquiries suggest it’s one of excuse; we should know better. quite amusing, since a couple of months the most commonly used “solutions” to after Taylor’s article Component Software LESSON NOT HEEDED? announced that it was merging with The Y2K mess as a whole is evidence Application Development, retaining the While many engineers that, for all the talk about objects having latter’s title. Does this mean that compo- and managers are familiar become mainstream, we still have a long nents are out and we are now back to with the basic goals of way to go, and not only regarding the applications? Probably not. A marketing object technology, only more advanced parts of object technology. strategy is not a technology trend. a minority has really In this department’s column about the understood the deeper topic (Christopher Creele, Bertrand TEACHING THOSE concepts and started to Meyer, and Philippe Stephan, “The Op- WHO ALREADY KNOW apply them thoroughly. portunity of a Millennium,” Computer, The “we know all about objects so Nov. 1997, pp. 137-138), we pointed out what else is new” attitude cited by Al that the millennium problem was the Davis is indeed widespread. In my expe- the Y2K issue. Windowing means that opportunity for a generalized opening-up rience it is largely unjustified. While you don’t touch files and databases using and cleaning-up of major software sys- many engineers and managers are famil- two-digit dates; you just choose a pivot tems. All signs indicate that this has hap- iar with the basic goals of object tech- date, say 1960, and hack the programs pened only in a minority of enlightened nology, only a minority has really so that whenever they use a 2-digit date companies. Others have simply patched understood the deeper concepts and code xy they do something like their code and are hoping for the best started to apply them thoroughly. This (including hoping that the patching can make life tough for object technol- if xy < 60 then process will not have introduced too ogy consultants and instructors: As every Understand this as the many new bugs). For all these companies, parent and educator knows, it is impos- date 20xy object technology is still in the future. sible to teach people something when else What object technology? This is where they think they already know it. Understand this as the we must again take a serious look at the I find that general intellectual sympa- date 19xy supposed arguments against object tech- thy with the principles of information end nology. (You can find a set of links in the hiding, data abstraction, taxonomy, “pros and cons” section of the Cetus OO reuse, systematic software construc- There can be no universal pivot date, so links at http://www.cetus-links.org/oo_ tion—an attitude found fairly universally “60” is just an example. An airline’s fre- infos.html#oo_general_info_general_ today—is not a good predictor of quent flyer system doesn’t need to go articles.) Although the criticism is offi- whether the person will actually apply back any earlier than 1970, but the air- cially directed at object technology, what these principles in software development. line’s pension program may have to deal it really addresses in many cases is C++. To anyone who has the opportunity of with people born in 1910. In an early article about object technol- peeking at the way companies large and Now this is really clever. First we make ogy, Bjarne Stroustrup mocked the pseu- small routinely write software these days, the programs even more complicated dosyllogism “Ada is good; Ada is OO; the myth that object technology is now than before, with all kinds of spurious therefore OO is good.” What we have passé sounds absurd.