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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, SUBJ_ALL_CAPS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 111d6b,3aad2600dfe8f337 X-Google-Attributes: gid111d6b,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,3aad2600dfe8f337 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,3aad2600dfe8f337 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: f753e,3aad2600dfe8f337 X-Google-Attributes: gidf753e,public X-Google-Thread: 10b276,3aad2600dfe8f337 X-Google-Attributes: gid10b276,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,3aad2600dfe8f337 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,3aad2600dfe8f337 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: fef06,3aad2600dfe8f337 X-Google-Attributes: gidfef06,public From: tangent@cyberport.com (Warren Young) Subject: Re: WHERE ARE ALL THE OT EXPERTS??? Date: 1996/07/27 Message-ID: <31fa4f6a.1089588215@news.cyberport.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 170532967 references: <4t6hk2$cek@chinx10.thoughtport.net> <31F6FC7E.7179@interaccess.com> <31F70013.7F13@online.no> <4t8ci3$fno@trotsky.cig.mot.com> organization: none newsgroups: comp.object,comp.object.corba,comp.object.logic,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++.leda,comp.lang.java.misc,comp.lang.javascript,comp.lang.objective-c,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.programming,comp.lang.java Date: 1996-07-27T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: crocker@tamarin.cig.mot.com (Ron Crocker) wrote: >>trivial as to be completely useless, and (2) it's *worse* than useless >>because it's a completely action-centered approach. Urgh. > >2) Define "action-centered" in this context. I don't understand what > you're trying to tell me. What is the alternative ("passive-centered" :-)? Action-centered design is usually associated with procedural programming, because it encourages this approach. Basically, it centers on the actions of the user, with each of the user's paths modeled in the software. Object-oriented programming can capture this sort of model, too, but doing so doesn't take advantage of the paradigm. For one thing, it tends to destroy reusability, because it ties the design to one specific domain. So, action-oriented design is to OOP what unstructured design was to procedural programming. A book I recently read points out that most people who use action-oriented design when using an O-O language tend to have roots in procedural programming. I don't know anything about CRC cards, but if it is action-oriented, it wouldn't surprise me that managers tend to like them. Most of these managers were probably promoted out of the programming ranks while they were still using a procedural language. Unfortunately, the different duties of a manager tend to separate them from the current technical happenings, so they're not as up-to-date as when they were programming. = Warren -- http://www.cyberport.com/~tangent