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: fac41,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 11cae8,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid11cae8,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: 1996/12/17 Message-ID: <32B66A56.3F2C@calfp.co.uk>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 204532027 x-nntp-posting-host: calfp.demon.co.uk references: <32A4659D.347A@shef.ac.uk> <32A71BC6.2D857063@arscorp.com> <32A82AFE.255A@possibility.com> <58bq8c$3n6@news.utdallas.edu> <32ABCB1F.5207@possibility.com> <32b016d4.3487487@nntp.interaccess.com> <32B125E0.7880@calfp.co.uk> <32b55196.1250002@nntp.interaccess.com> 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.lnag.java,comp.object,comp.software-eng x-mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (X11; I; SunOS 5.5 sun4m) Date: 1996-12-17T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Samuel S. Shuster wrote: > >> I've got an opinion as to why. VisualBasic does not promote a disciplined > >> approach to development. [ yadda-yadda-my-babble ] > > > >It also fails because it is 'visual'. People think building the UI is > >building the system. Building a model is not the usual disciplined > >approach taken with VB. You can do this with VB, but I haven't seen > >many examples. > > Ok, but only to a point. There is nothing inherently wrong with Visual > programming. Read on. There is significant problems with 99% of the tools out > there that are "Visual" today. The problem is that they focus the Visual stuff > totally on the "View" - User Interface. There is no Visual Application Modeling, > there is no Visual Domain Modeling (well, no Dynamic stuff, just static CASE - > ER Modeling BS), there is no Visual Persistence Modeling, there is no Visual > Coordinator Modeling, etc. > > Each of these things CAN be presented with Visual tools. I worked on a project > (Continuum) that was doing this. The fact that these tools don't exist > commercially, doesn't in and of itself make "Visual" bad. Only the current > myopic set of tools that focus on the least meaningful end of the development > continuum... the User Interface. > > That said, yes, people think building the UI is building the system, and its > not only the cart in front of the horse, it's the whole buggy before there's a > road to ride it on. It is wrong, and it is promoted by almost every visual tool > on the market. > > Because of this, Visual/Declaritive development probably won't see it's full > potential. This is sad. I just don't believe that it's a fundamental problem of > "Visual Development"... any more than it was a fundamental problem of the IDE > tools of the previous generation. > And So It Goes I agree, I think you can produce good systems with VB. However you need to use VB to produce top quality objects that then get used in different ways. In a bank there should be a counterparty object, that you can use to select counterparties, input them if you have the right etc. However everybody I have seen doing VB writes there own screens to do this, with SQL or otherwise interacting with the DB. More coordination would help but in a RAD environment, it tends to go out of the window. -- Nick