🚀 go-pugleaf

Jeffrey K Regan wrote:

> I am in the rather interesting position of having to explain the value
> of object oriented programming to a large corporate architecture team.
> Specifically, I need to explain to them the value of wrapping
> collections of C functions into C++ classes.

OOP goes far beyond "wrapping".  But perhaps if you mull over
what you already know about "encapsulation" and "polymorphism",
you'll be able to come up with a presentation that takes "wrapping"
to the next conceptual level -- objects = data and behavior.
 
> Can anybody help me with references that I can use to supplement my own
> explanations? I still cannot believe I am reduced to explaining this
> kind of fundamental thing to a corporate system architecture team. Go
> figure!

Why are you surprised?  My outside-looking-in view tells me that the
corporate world loves Visual Basic which has no notion of the value
of objects.  


Paul Furbacher