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: 109fba,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: fac41,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public From: Tim Ottinger Subject: Re: What is wrong with OO ? Date: 1997/01/01 Message-ID: <32CB44CB.2D39@dave-world.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 207280136 references: <5acfqv$5uj@news3.digex.net> content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii mime-version: 1.0 reply-to: tottinge@dave-world.net newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.object,comp.software-eng x-mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) Date: 1997-01-01T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Ell wrote: > > I think we see the top level design in different ways. I see it as a > logical thing with no commitment to a technology. In the above you are > positing the use of "composites" up front. My top level design would only > incorporate the desire to meet a specific weight goal without commiting to > one technology or the other. I would leave it to lower levels to figure > out how to meet the weight goal. If the lower levels found the goal > impossible they would give feedback to the top level and we would make the > requisite changes to the top level. In an ideal world (for developers, not buyers), where no requirements were in the contract until after all details were worked out, this would be great. It's not to say that this can never work, but imagine what happens when the "top level" guys commit to a given weight, but don't understand that no existing materials will allow the goal to be met. They can really set up a no-win situation for both the lower-level guys and the customer. I guess that's my problem with waterfall, rather than "what's wrong with OO": that the contracts sometimes specify un-buildable systems, and they're signed into law before any engineers have worked out that it is or is not possible in the cost and time constraints given. Now, this has gone horribly off-charter, and wandered back into the well-swam waters of whether, during OO, one should steer the architecture during implementation. It's a topic worthy of discussion, and we've already done that. -- Tim ******************************************************************** In some sense, all of life is design. The way we pick our friends, the way we plant a garden, and the way we choose software is all design. Sometimes we do things by habit, other times by carefully weighing the pros and cons, and sometimes we make experiments. -- Ralph Johnson --