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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fac41,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Bill Gooch Subject: Re: What is wrong with OO ? Date: 1996/12/05 Message-ID: <32A7013E.23C4@iconcomp.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 202525499 references: <585fep$ero@news3.digex.net> x-rtcode: a184066432229b9737a6ff0a followup-to: comp.object,comp.software-eng content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii organization: Icon Computing mime-version: 1.0 reply-to: bill@iconcomp.com newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.object,comp.software-eng x-mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (WinNT; I) Date: 1996-12-05T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: [followups trimmed] Ell wrote: > > Bill Gooch (bill@iconcomp.com) wrote: > : Ahmed wrote: > : .... > : > Every programmer is tackling the same problem using his own perception > : > of the problem..his own abstraction.. > > : Yes, and the alternative is?... > > Relying on domain experts for fundamental application semantics and as > well relying on domain experts to determine implementation necessaries for > application use. Fair enough. Also I would have said "sharing explicit models among all interested parties" to avoid problems that often arise due to miscommunication (or lack of comunication). > Relying on domain experts for implementation of Use Cases. I'm not sure what "implementation of use cases" means here - can you explain? I'm more familiar with the idea of software analysts and designers implementing things based on what they hear from domain experts and users. > : > The concept behind OO is that it deals with peices of software as > : > tangible objects exactly as real world works.. > > Yes! Well not *exactly* as the real world operates, but in a way that > utilizes, and is anchored upon "real world" domain abstractions, > patterns, and semantics. > > : Not at all. "How the real world works" is by no means > : obvious or well understood ("real world" in itself is > : an exceedingly vague term), and you'd need to provide > : some definitions of these things, as well as evidence > : to support the above assertion. > > If we grasp, as in you have alluded to in many of your previous posts that > development should start with understanding domain abstractions and > relationships how is that different from basing project analysis and > architecture on "tangible objects exactly as the real world operates". Fine, all except for the quote, which I can't interpret in a way that I'm comfortable with. Ill-defined terms combining to form what looks to me like total nonsense. I can't answer your question, because I don't know what the quote is trying to say (your explanation is one of numerous possibilities). > : > while in the OO software each object has a behaviour according to > : > the perception of his designer..!! > > : Sometimes. The designer probably hopes it does. > > Yes, the pragmatists and empiricists hope that they can do whatever they > want to analysis and physical design based on their narrow inclinations. If you say so. (Here I have a strange unpleasant feeling of deja vu.) > In actuality there is an objective reality (or at the very least objective > human conception) behind what goes on in an application and its domain > that developers should attempt to model as closely as possible. In actuality that is just one opinion. I'm curious, though: what is "objective human conception?" > : > The problem is that many organization avoid moving toword OO because > : > the transfter cost to OO ( training programmers / organization change in > : > standards / new tools / new analysis and design methods / legacy > : > system/ etc. ) are much higher than the benifit of "immediate reuse" > > : OK - why is this a problem? > > Because "immediate reuse" should not be the only, or main criteria by > which an organization adopts one development paradigm or another (e.g. OO > vs. others), as I see it.... Good. What in your opinion are some other important criteria? Actually my question was more about why it matters in general whether or not "many organizations avoid moving toward OO." But I like your answer, even if it's responding to a slightly different question. -- William D. Gooch bill@iconcomp.com Icon Computing http://www.iconcomp.com Texas liaison for the International Programmers Guild For IPG info, see http://www.ipgnet.com/ipghome.htm