John Doty wrote:

Because there is so much crappy *software* around. The problem there is
more fundamental than objects. Objects are just a way to structure code
and data. If the programmer doesn't have a clear idea of the problem
they are trying to solve, objects won't help them-- and neither will not
using objects.

This is an example of selective quoting. The surrounding context you
extracted my statement from was talking about Forth programmers who
understand objects. I am not at all concerned with those who
reflexively reject objects or who refuse to rub two brain cells together
to understand what they are.

In article , nntp@JapanIsShinto.com
(John Passaniti) wrote:

Sturgeon's Law applies "90%% of anything is crap", though in my opinion
the rate of increase in hardware performance allows people to get away
with almost anything. In any case performance is limited by user
interfaces. I can not touch type so for usenet I am limited by my typing
speed rather than any program bloat. I am not working any faster on this
machine than I was on a Windows 98 machine with half the processor speed
and a lot less memory.

I have used OO in Delphi. All the controls including forms are derived
by inheritance, however I found that the bits of implementation I was
doing did not use objects but just structures (records) functions and
procedures. That was quicker and easier than defining new classes to
inherit from. I have also used the Atari ST Object Forth and found that
no harder to understand than standard Forth, it was not any easier though.