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=1.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,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: 109fba,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 11cae8,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid11cae8,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Bill Gooch Subject: Re: What is wrong with OO ? Date: 1996/12/06 Message-ID: <32A87367.4D20@iconcomp.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 202746072 references: <32A4659D.347A@shef.ac.uk> <32A47B95.393F@iconcomp.com> <32A59FE9.2667@shef.ac.uk> <32A5F390.2A99@iconcomp.com> <32A8558E.63BB@shef.ac.uk> x-rtcode: fffe0fe8324321ba87a87108 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.lnag.java,comp.object,comp.software-eng x-mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (WinNT; I) Date: 1996-12-06T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Ahmed wrote: > >.... > It is true that the spare parts are not compatible ( in general ) between different car models, > However almost all cars share the same level of abstraction, > > when you say a "radiator" to a mechnical engineer he will immediately understand its functionality, > no matter if it is a Mercedece or Honda car. > When you say to a mechanic "piston" "shaft" "gear-box" "clutch" "handbrake" ...etc... In software, any of the above would be a "pattern." > Even if you go to lower levels, each part has a name and a main function, > Without this common abstaction between cars then the job of any mechanics will be almost > imposible. Otherwise every car model will require a dedicated mechanical engineer. The analogy breaks down because all cars respond to essentially the same set of general requirements, with variations occurring at a more detailed level. Software requirements vary widely at all levels, and thus the *application* and *composition* of common patterns in different pieces of code also vary accordingly. Cars (and trucks) are all similar in many important respects, in addition to the fact that the patterns involved in their designs are pretty well and widely understood. Your everyday mechanic will usually know most of the patterns by heart, whereas a typical software engineer is often learning new patterns with each new project. > Yes you need to provide some definitions for tricky words that might > give different semantics, however trivail words in the proper context > are self explainatory ..!! IMO words are never "self explanatory." It's in the nature of perception that each individual has his or her own distinct interpretation. But there is a wide range of variation in the ambiguity of different words, and "real" and "world" are both separately, and even more so when used together, highly ambiguous. We tend to ignore or even deny the ambiguity of words like these that we use very frequently, but trying to define them in very specific terms often illuminates the issue. -- 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