From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: *** X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, RATWARE_MS_HASH,RATWARE_OUTLOOK_NONAME autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 11cae8,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid11cae8,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public X-Google-Thread: fac41,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public From: "Roger T." Subject: Re: What is wrong with OO ? Date: 1996/12/04 Message-ID: <01bbe213$3ac3ff40$371883cc@beast.advancedsw.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 202352620 references: <32A4659D.347A@shef.ac.uk> organization: Advanced Software Technologies newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.lnag.java,comp.object,comp.software-eng Date: 1996-12-04T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Harry Protoolis wrote in article ... > >My question is what is wrong with OO ? why it did not achieved its targets yet.? > >What are the main obstacles? > > The traditional techniques all suffered from a number of significant > flaws. Perhaps the most damaging one was what I (rather unkindly) think > of as 'The glorification of idiots' phenomenon. What I mean by this is > that projects were typically infested by a group of people who never > wrote any software, but spent most of the budget drawing diagrams that > the implementors never used. I agree with your thesis in general but I would like to point out that the the glorification of idiots also included the glorification of those implementors that had no use at all for any high level analysis and design efforts. There are plenty of implementors who could be called idiots for engaging in what I call "stream of consciousness" coding. > The main contribution of OO has been was could be termed 'The > glorification on the implementor'. This has been achieved by the > effective marriage of Analysis, Design and Implementation. The result > is that every member of the team does all three of the key tasks. This is true but the question I wonder about is how much importance and therefore time does the implementor invest in the Analysis and Design parts. The most important result of OO is that it encourages the implementor to value these development stages more highly than he might otherwise. Implementation is the ultimate goal and OO is a means to reach that goal and also provide a quality product. > In fact IMHO an OO team has no place for anyone who cannot do all > three tasks. Jim Coplein wrote an excellent pattern called > 'Architect also Implements' which covers very nicely the reasoning > behind not allowing non-implementors to design systems. Agree. > Certainly the mecca of automatic reuse has not been achieved, but the > quantity and quality of 3rd party components available for most OO > languages already exceeds that available for their non-OO counterparts, > and IHMO this suggests a bright future. Agree. > Certainly OO has not made writing software trivial or automatic, but > then, *nothing ever will*. It will make writing some ever-growing subset of software trivial or automatic and free us to attack more difficult coding problems. Roger T.