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: 109fba,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: fac41,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public From: "Roger T." Subject: Re: What is wrong with OO ? Date: 1996/12/17 Message-ID: <01bbec50$0abb3380$371883cc@beast.advancedsw.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 204587113 references: <58aj6t$1ch@news3.digex.net> <01bbeb6f$e2220c40$371883cc@beast.advancedsw.com> organization: Advanced Software Technologies newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.object,comp.software-eng Date: 1996-12-17T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Robert C. Martin wrote in article ... > In article <01bbeb6f$e2220c40$371883cc@beast.advancedsw.com>, "Roger T." > wrote: > > Although I am in agreement with what Robert posts above I also have an > > addition to the development scenario. > > > > I believe that the environment the designers operate in should allow them > > to, if deemed necessary, *completely* discard the prototype code that is > > built during these iterations. > > Absolutely! This is their perogative. The code was first written > as a test to see if the concepts were correct. Any of that code that survives > that test may find its way into the actual product. As time goes on, and > more and more of these test are run, the more likely it is that the test code > will be usable. But any part of it that is not usable should be discarded > without a second thought. This brings up a succeeding issue. Let's assume that coders are given the freedom to discard their prototypes. The next problem facing me as a manager is to make sure they actually use that freedom. The desire to paste functionality onto the prototypes to "fix" them so they support new functionality is very seductive when it means a short term time savings. To some extent you are re-inventing the wheel, though in a better form. Designers must realize that prototype extinction is not only allowed but is encouraged if it has the effect of creating long term product robustness. How would you encourage/enforce that philosophy with your developers? Roger T.