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: fac41,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,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: Nick Leaton Subject: Re: What is wrong with OO ? Date: 1996/12/06 Message-ID: <32A824E3.5B28@calfp.co.uk>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 202682229 x-nntp-posting-host: calfp.demon.co.uk references: <5883q1$oae@news3.digex.net> content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii mime-version: 1.0 newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.object,comp.software-eng x-mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (X11; I; SunOS 5.5 sun4m) Date: 1996-12-06T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: : > : > How flexible is the software? This has a lot to do with architecture: > : > "if you don't get the architecture right up front, you may as well pack > : > up and go home" [quote made by a fellow engineer]. > > : These kinds of statements always bother me. How are you supposed to > : know that the architecture (or design for that matter) is right? > : > : The only way I see is to implement it and see how it works. That's > : why the iterative software development makes sense, you get to try > : out out your ideas in practice and adjust them as needed. > > The point as far as I'm concerned is that an architecture should guide > _all_ coding. That is even if the initial architecture is later modified, > or later scrapped. But if you take an standard example, employee. Can you code up an employee class without having an architecture? As an employee class could be used in lots of different systems, all with different architectures, you don't need to have an initial architecture to start from. This is true of almost all components. I don't see why there should be a distinction between top down and bottom up. I use both in practice. Start off coding the obvious objects. This gives you a feel for what you are doing. Then put them together in some framework. -- Nick