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: 109fba,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: fac41,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 11cae8,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid11cae8,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public From: Ranjan Bagchi Subject: Re: What is wrong with OO ? Date: 1996/12/06 Message-ID: <32A8631E.4CB0@pobox.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 202716517 references: <32A4659D.347A@shef.ac.uk> content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii organization: Concentric Internet Services mime-version: 1.0 newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.lnag.java,comp.object,comp.software-eng x-mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) Date: 1996-12-06T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Myles Williams wrote: > > In article <588g4v$jer@samba.rahul.net> Carl Weidling writes: > On the other hand, wasn't there a famous example back in the 70s > when 'top-level design' was first being expounded, where some big project > for a newspaper or something was designed first and then coded and it worked. > I remember this being cited a lot when I first started programming, can > anyone recall details or hard facts about that? > > That would be the New York Times database, created by IBM circa 1970. > It was the first full-scale application of structured programming, and > was completed early and under budget with approximately 0.25 > defects/kLOC. > Wow.. that's impressive. It also indicates to me that flagship projects in any methodology seem to be incredibly successful. Perhaps it's because world-class engineers are working on it and they're just succesful regardless of technology or tools or anything. The suggestion, though, may be that success of projects done by mere-mortal engineers using a particular methodology provide better data points. How this applies to the success of O-O is interesting because I think most people agree that misapplied O-O results in failed projects which sully O-O's reputation. Is it easier for mere-mortals to understand O-O? Should mere-mortals be in the software development business at all is another question, which is vaguely frightening. -rj