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: 1108a1,4aa50ad1884cdfbd,start
X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public
X-Google-Thread: 114809,4aa50ad1884cdfbd,start
X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public
X-Google-Thread: fac41,4aa50ad1884cdfbd,start
X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public
X-Google-Thread: 109fba,4aa50ad1884cdfbd,start
X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,4aa50ad1884cdfbd,start
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Thread: f43e6,4aa50ad1884cdfbd,start
X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public
From: "Andrew Hallam" <ahallam@ozemail.com.au>
Subject: Obtaining OT Skills/Knowledge  (Was: What is wrong with OO?)
Date: 1996/12/15
Message-ID: <01bbea2e$4eebebe0$11b607cb@ahallam.ozemail.com.au>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 204183080
organization: Ingenium Solutions Pty Ltd
newsgroups: 
 comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.object,comp.software-eng
Date: 1996-12-15T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


>From thread "What is wrong with OO?"

Samuel S. Shuster <sshuster@parcplace.com> wrote in article
<32b016d4.3487487@nntp.interaccess.com>...
<snip>

>   Let's look out to the side a moment. VisualBasic. Certainly it's one of
those
> "EveryMan" tools. But why does it fail so bad on large enterprise
systems, and
> in particular why does it fail so bad when the system requires large
groups of
> interacting subsystems and interaction between developers and testing and
even
> worse for maintenance?
> 
>   I've got an opinion as to why. VisualBasic does not promote a
disciplined
> approach to development. I hold that in fact it promotes a cowboy
attitude. In
> order to get to the large system with all that goes with it with
VisualBasic,
> one not only has to diligently apply an external discipline, one has to
fight
> the tool in order to do so!
> 
>   What OT (or any methodology does) is define a discipline. Is it a
general
> methodology? Yes. But a methodology none the less, and as such, demands
that
> discipline be used in order to see any benefit from it. Lip service
doesn't do
> it. Knowledge alone doesn't do it. Doing it, with rigor, is the only way.

<snip>

>   It is a discipline. It is a discipline like all other disciplines that
in
> order to be successful must be applied. Applied rigorously. In my
opinion,
> anything less is not Object Technology...

<snip>

>   TANSTAAFL. The biggest problem facing the software community is the too
> widespread belief that Object Technology is a free lunch.

Hi All,

As a self employed developer who is attempting to move from small systems
prototyping/RAD style development to a more robust OT engineering style
approach I have been reading the "What is wrong with OO?" thread with
interest.  (My thanks to all who contributed, and those who will do so in
future.)  

Above, Mr Shuster has alluded to the main problem with using
VB/Access/Delphi style tools - lack of enforced discipline - I agree, hence
this message. Other comments/opinions in this thread have reinforced my
belief that the leap into OT should not be taken lightly, indeed it should
be taken with caution.

However, many people in my situation must be asking:  What is the best way
to ensure that my leap into OT has the best chance of success?

I believe I am making this leap for the right reasons - high quality
product, maintainability, etc - but I simply cannot afford to have my first
OT project fall in a screaming heap.  

How do the OT beginners of the world become proficient at OO design and
implementation?  

Is my apprehension at launching into OT an asset or a warning?

TIA

Kind regards
Andrew Hallam