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: 11cae8,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid11cae8,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: tbushell@fox.nstn.ns.ca (Tom Bushell) Subject: Re: What is wrong with OO ? Date: 1996/12/05 Message-ID: <32a5ceba.81462731@news.nstn.ca>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 202426251 references: <32A4659D.347A@shef.ac.uk> organization: Telekinetics newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.lnag.java,comp.object,comp.software-eng Date: 1996-12-05T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: On Wed, 04 Dec 1996 08:45:22 -0600, rmartin@oma.com (Robert C. Martin) wrote: >harry@matilda.alt.net.au (Harry Protoolis) wrote: > >> The traditional techniques all suffered from a number of significant >> flaws. Perhaps the most damaging one was what I (rather unkindly) think >> of as 'The glorification of idiots' phenomenon. What I mean by this is >> that projects were typically infested by a group of people who never >> wrote any software, but spent most of the budget drawing diagrams that >> the implementors never used. > >Much to my dismay, there are some OO methods that are promoting >the same scheme. The "analyst" draw nice pretty little diagrams, and >even run them through simulators to "prove" that they work. These >diagrams are then run through a program that generates code. Programmers >who maintain that code generator have to make sure that the "right" code >is generated. They have to make the program work. It is my growing opinion that this is a fundamental problem with all "formal" design methods, not just OO design. The effort involved in doing the design is as great or greater than doing the construction (coding). Contrast this with doing the blueprints for a bridge - the design effort is orders of magnitude cheaper than the construction. (Or so I believe - a civil engineer might correct me on this). Also, the OO design models I've studied don't seem to be very good maps of actual real world systems - there seems to be a big gap between high level architecture and running code. I believe there should be a fairly smooth continuim from high level to low level of detail. I'm starting to believe that design and code don't make sense as separate entities - the design should _become_ the code - the design documents for an implemented system are used as the foundation of the code, and then regenerated from the code. Major benefits would be that design work would not be discarded because it was too difficult to bring it up to date with reality. Therefore, the design should never get out of synch. This a similar idea to reverse engineering, but not identical. If anyone has knows of tools that would facilitate this approach, I'd certainly be interested. I've done some very simple prototypes, and hope to work on the idea in future (when I have more time - Hah!). -Tom ---------------------------------------------------------- Tom Bushell * Custom Software Development Telekinetics * Process Improvement Consulting 2653 Highway 202 * Technical Writing RR#1, Elmsdale, NS B0N 1M0 (902)632-2772 Email: tbushell@fox.nstn.ns.ca ----------------------------------------------------------