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: f43e6,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: fac41,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public 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: 114809,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public From: tbushell@fox.nstn.ns.ca (Tom Bushell) Subject: Re: What is wrong with OO ? Date: 1996/12/06 Message-ID: <32a7ae3c.11882739@news.nstn.ca>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 202658930 references: <32A4659D.347A@shef.ac.uk> <32a5ceba.81462731@news.nstn.ca> organization: Telekinetics newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.object,comp.software-eng Date: 1996-12-06T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: On 05 Dec 1996 22:30:40 +0000, pcg@aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) wrote: >*If* analisys and design efforts were conducted in resonance with each >other and implementation, then spending more effort on those than coding >would be all fine and actually rather useful, I agree that the effort is useful. But my gut feeling is that with better (and apparently undiscovered, as yet) processes and tools, the high level design activity should be about 10% of the total project, not around 50%. >tbushell> Contrast this with doing the blueprints for a bridge - the >tbushell> design effort is orders of magnitude cheaper than the >tbushell> construction. (Or so I believe - a civil engineer might >tbushell> correct me on this). > >It is usually _cheaper_, but on the other hand it might take _longer_. I assume this is because the design is the work of a much smaller team, whose only physical output is computer models or paper. This is my point - other engineering disciplines appear to routinely put much less total effort into design, with much greater success. I guess this is just the positive result of greater maturity as a discipline. >tbushell> Also, the OO design models I've studied don't seem to be very >tbushell> good maps of actual real world systems - there seems to be a >tbushell> big gap between high level architecture and running code. I >tbushell> believe there should be a fairly smooth continuim from high >tbushell> level to low level of detail. > >Why? Why not? ;-) (Don't know what you're asking here...) >But OO is in large part about this: the ``high level'' >modules/classes/prototypes are supposed to capture the essence of the >design. Pointing some sort of OO program browser to a program source and >removing from the picture the lower levels of abstraction *ought* to >reveal the design. This *ought* to be the case with structured >programming methods in general, and with OO in particular it should be >even more pleasant because of the disciplined modularization of the >program it entails. Absolutely! But why doesn't it work out that way? -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 ----------------------------------------------------------