CS 4448 - Spring 1998
Object-Oriented Programming and Design
Discussion 2.2.1
by
Adam J. Griff

Object Technology and Reuse: Lessons from Early Adopters
by
Robert G. Fichman and Chris F. Kemerer

Questions were raised about what it means for a project to fail. There are many ways to interpret this term. The authors base it on the companies interpretation. Some companies viewed the projects as failures but still viewed the switch to OO as successful. These groups would use it on all future projects. Others decided to stop using OO. It appears that OO is good for some projects and not others so groups that continue using OO but see when not to use it have had positive experiences.
Another point we discussed was how can we use this information to aid current development projects. Some information is interesting but no longer applies, for example lack of tools. It is true we now have tools but it does show the importance of making sure the technology fits your needs. There may be many OO tools but not the ones for the type of DB work you are doing. In this case OO might cause more problems then it solves.
It seemed very important that the entire project buy into the technology. If one part of a project goes OO but the rest don't want it then the conflicts alone can eliminate the advantages of OO.
An interesting observation was that the Smalltalk project did not do any better then the C++ projects, if anything worse. Yet the group had a more positive experience with the technology. The language did make it easier for them to learn and use the OO paradigm but the tools needed for the project were just not in place.