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: fac41,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,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: 11cae8,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid11cae8,public From: tbushell@fox.nstn.ns.ca (Tom Bushell) Subject: Re: What is wrong with OO ? Date: 1996/12/10 Message-ID: <32a97bdf.45306250@news.nstn.ca>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 203337565 references: <32A4659D.347A@shef.ac.uk> <32a5ceba.81462731@news.nstn.ca> <32A84763.44B6@dma.isg.mot.com> organization: Telekinetics newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.lnag.java,comp.object,comp.software-eng Date: 1996-12-10T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: On Fri, 06 Dec 1996 11:18:43 -0500, Mukesh Prasad wrote: > >In practice, I have seen a shortened version, >the "backward spec", i.e. specifications done >from implemenations (with modifications as required) >work very well in certain cases. Much better than the >strict "implement exactly from spec" approach. The problem is that with current tools available to the average developer, this is a manual step. Most shops don't have the discipline to do it, so we end up with the current situation - the only accurate description of the system is the code, which is at too low a level of abstraction to easily develop system level understanding. >I believe these less top-down approaches work better >because in a lot of cases, at specification time >the product is very vaguely understood. Moreover, >many implementation problems are not anticipated well. >An actual, physical implementation can sharpen everybody's >hazy understanding to the point where actually good design >decisions can be made. Agree 100%. >Thus doing the spec from an >initial implementation, and fixing the implementation >to match the final spec, can yield much >better results overall. Even better - eliminate the spec/implementation dichotomy. The spec is just an "outline", if you will, of the implementation, and remains as an intregal part, automatically tracking the implementation and instantly viewable at any time. I don't see any reason why we can't do this - to use Fred Brook's terms, it's just an "accidental" complexity, not an an "essential" one. -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 ----------------------------------------------------------