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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,7f8fc37d854731d6 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,7f8fc37d854731d6 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,7f8fc37d854731d6 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,7f8fc37d854731d6 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 10461e,7f8fc37d854731d6 X-Google-Attributes: gid10461e,public From: Alan Lovejoy Subject: Re: Interesting but sensitive topic to discuss (HELP: - OOP and CASE tools) Date: 1996/11/12 Message-ID: <32890CB7.19B5@concentric.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 196399843 references: <32813322.41C6@kyebek3.kjist.ac.kr> <55pqr5$136a@grimsel.zurich.ibm.com> <328109CD.6685@concentric.net> <55v177$ufo@grimsel.zurich.ibm.com> <3283BB94.2D82@concentric.net> <32875B03.3729@iconcomp.com> content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii organization: Modulation mime-version: 1.0 newsgroups: comp.object,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.ai x-mailer: Mozilla 2.01Gold (Win95; U) Date: 1996-11-12T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Jan Steinman wrote: > > In article <32875B03.3729@iconcomp.com>, bill@iconcomp.com wrote: > > > Alan Lovejoy wrote: > > > > > > I think you've hit the nail on the head. I do distinguish between > "design" and "coding". > > > > > > To me, the "design" of a program is a language-independent > abstraction. Implementation > > > inheritance is a coding issue.... > > > > I'd like to hear more about how you think design can be done > > independent of language, and what such a "design" would look > > like... > > The biggest disasters I've seen were designed with the philosophy that the > implementation vehicle was unimportant. (In fact, the January issue of The > Smalltalk Report is rumored to have a column on this very topic... :-) > Conversely, the most successful projects I've seen were ones where the > designers were well-versed in the implementation language. > > I think it is necessary for the designer to understand -- if not excel in > -- the implementation vehicle. "Real" architects study civil engineering > as well as architecture, or else they might design a skyscraper made of > wood and paper. My usage of the word "design" in the quote above is being interpreted in a way other than I intended. In the context of the earlier posts, it should have been clear that by "design" I was referring to the objects that exist when the program runs, and how they interact. And I was **defining** the term design as I had used it, not trying to suggest that the implementation technology is not important, or that one should not consider such issues when producing a design or implementing a system! For a design to be "language independent", it is sufficient that it be implementable in any language. Whether it would be the optimal implementation in each language is a different (although admittedly important) issue. So I actually agree with your thesis. > > I think it is impossible to progress very far from a domain > > model into design without considering target language... > > Here here! Well, not **impossible**, just ill-advised. > > > * When should delegation be used instead of inheritance? > > Hmmm... how do you accomplish *that* in a language independent manner? Again, I did not suggest that you should. > Turn it over to a C++ coder, they might consider multiple inheritance, > turn it over to a Smalltalker, they're going to think of general > delegation. Of course. But the methodology should deal with this issue, and give the right answer for each language--or perhaps suggest that the wrong implementation language is being used for the problem at hand. > Programming is still a combination of art, craft, and science. Most > methodologies I've encountered try to force programming entirely into the > "science" realm. I think that is a mistake. Yes, but the goal of scientific rigor is a good one. Recognizing that we aren't there yet can only be healthy, whether one is a methodology user or a methodology researcher. -- Alan L. Lovejoy |==============================================| Smalltalk Consultant | Beware of Geeks bearing GIFs! | alovejoy@concentric.net |==============================================|