From an article in the journal IEEE Software, May 1996, page 37. Unfortunately, I don’t have the author or title of the article and searches for the content on ieee.org don’t seem to find it, so I’ve scanned it in below.
Although most of the software world doesn’t seem to talk about OOD this way, the “lesson” below seems reasonable based on my experiences.
If the control flow is partitioned into a “separate dynamic control flow object” as mentioned below, isn’t that object really not an object at all, based on the definition of an object containing data and actions modelling an entity? Stated another way, object oriented design only makes sense when the actions are centered around a piece of data. In this case, the actions are centered around coordinating control flow.
Could the whole computer science industry be so wrong about something for so long? I seems similar to the repudiation of psychoanalysis after 60 years of the dominance of the theory:
Ben Slade's Blog 