I was referring thing like using member functions to do bounds checking and to make parameters consistent.
That's not really "the right way" to do programming or something generic abstraction gets you. The calling function should just know what it's doing. The Dijkstra quote "Object oriented programs are offered as alternatives to correct ones..." is correct. If you set a wrong parameter, it's ignored and your program works, it might have a more subtle bug from what you thought your wrong parameter would accomplish.
But this is still useful for programs produced by large teams where some people knowledge is limited. It's a mess but no one has put forward an alternative to the mess.
I think Dijkstra's joke is about how object oriented programs tend to eschew correctness rather easily. But I don't think he was saying that's a valid approach to solving problems.
Adding new methods to an object to tame complexity seems paradoxical to me. When something becomes too large, I generally prefer to investigate other means of abstraction/extraction/organization available in a given language.
That's not really "the right way" to do programming or something generic abstraction gets you. The calling function should just know what it's doing. The Dijkstra quote "Object oriented programs are offered as alternatives to correct ones..." is correct. If you set a wrong parameter, it's ignored and your program works, it might have a more subtle bug from what you thought your wrong parameter would accomplish.
But this is still useful for programs produced by large teams where some people knowledge is limited. It's a mess but no one has put forward an alternative to the mess.