"can you summarize on the Booch Method?"

[cjames@melchizedek.cec-services.com (The Right Reverend Colin James III)]

tuishimi@aol.com (Tuishimi) posted with deletions:

| can you summarize on the Booch Method?

I can:  terribly complicated and not easy to read.  

It, and tools purporting to support it, are not seamless or reversible
and are ambiguous, ie, a design therefrom can not be verified correct
using second-order predicate logic.  (The same goes for Rumbaugh's OMT
and the unfinished, upcoming UNIFIED, which should be named UNIFRIED.)

An anomaly of the Booch method is that anytime a new method comes
along, ie, add one to the 50 or 60 methods out there already, it can
be said that the Booch method suddenly has a stub for that newer
method as a sub-set within Booch, the mother-of-all-methods.  Hence,
avoid the plastic Booch method, and avoid the trendy, newer stuff.

In that regard, the Booch method is similar to the 'scientific'
hypothesis of evolution, whereby for each episode when a new fossil is
found and a "better" Carbon-date is derived, the whole structure of
bricks (fossils) gets raised up to accommodate the new brick which is
inserted at its base (rather than right on top).

I am very happy with Business Object Notation (BON), for which see
www.eiffel.com.  I am not going to describe BON here, because that was
not the question, and the readers of comp.lang.ada, comp.lang.c, and
comp.lang.c++ generally prefer perfect ignorance as bliss.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Colin James III, Principal Scientist  cjames@cec-services.com
CEC Services, 2080 Kipling St, Lakewood, CO  80215-1502   USA
Voice: 303.231.9437;  Facsimile: .231.9438;  Data:  .231.9434  
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~