lies about OOP

[beliavsky at aol.com]

A paper finding that OOP can lead to more buggy software is at
http://www.leshatton.org/IEEE_Soft_98a.html

Les Hatton "Does OO sync with the way we think?", IEEE Software, 15(3),
p.46-54
"This paper argues from real data that OO based systems written in C++
appear to increase the cost of fixing defects significantly when
compared with systems written in either C or Pascal. It goes on to
suggest that at least some aspects of OO, for example inheritance, do
not fit well with the way we make mistakes."

His comments under "invited feedback" are amusing and confirm my
impression that OOP is partly (but perhaps not entirely) hype:

"I should not that this paper because it criticised OO had an unusually
turbulent review period. 2 reviewers said they would cut their throats
if it was published and 3 said the opposite. The paper was only
published if the OO community could publish a rebuttal. I found this
very amusing as my paper contains significant data. The rebuttal had
none. This sort of thing is normal in software engineering which mostly
operates in a measurement-free zone."

What papers have scientific evidence for OOP?

Paul Graham's skeptical comments on OOP are at
http://www.paulgraham.com/noop.html .

If OOP is so beneficial for large projects, why are the Linux kernel,
the interpreters for Perl and Python, and most compilers I know written
in C rather than C++?