Re: What is wrong with OO ?

[tbushell@fox.nstn.ns.ca (Tom Bushell)]

On Tue, 31 Dec 1996 09:28:08 -0600, rmartin@oma.com (Robert C. Martin)
wrote:

>This is undoubtedly true.  As engineers we need a CAE system that combines
>the CASE tool, editor, compiler, documentation tool, debugger, test plan
>generator, simulator, etc into a single seamless facility.  We should be 
>able to browse through our design diagrams, focusing into certain points,
>double clicking on an adornment or icon to bring up a stretch of "source code"
>which we could edit.  Then build and debug in the same environment.

Exactly.  And since we're dreaming, let's take it a bit further.  You
should be able to edit the system at whatever level of abstraction you
are viewing it.  For example, adding a new argument to a method call
would propagate through the whole system automatically, or create a
map of errors where more detailed fixing was required.

If the system was runnable before the high level change, and nothing
was broken by the change, it should still run - immediately!


>Of course, after a little practice, the notion of turning right immediately
>translates into the corresponding pressures and velocity profiles for the
>stick and the pedals.  No thought is required.  The appropriate responses become
>wired into the brain.  

Seems to me this kind of eye/body type of learning comes much more
naturally to humans than textual "book learning" does.  Presumably the
parts of our brain that deal with written language evolved much more
recently, and are less advanced.


>So it is with any computer language.  Once you have mastered it, its use
>becomes wired in, and the struggle with the layer between design and 
>implementation disappears.

Very true.  But my experience has been that "wiring in" to certain
languages is easier.  Smalltalk especially, Forth, and to a certain
extent Visual BASIC seem much more natural and comfortable than C/C++,
at least for me.  I believe this is because they were concieved as
_personal_ computer languages, so are highly interactive and open.
C/C++ are FORTRAN descendants, which evolved in a mainframe batch
environment.  Of course, the supporting development environment can
have a very large effect too - I'll take a GUI over a command line any
day.

It seems much easier to get into a state of flow when using these
languages - you just code and test, and everything seems to work.  I
can hardly ever achieve this happy state in C, even though it's one of
my most familiar languages - it's just too much like work.

Interestingly enough, this can often be done without a lot of up front
design, and rarely results in a mess.  

Many years ago, I read a very short article by a PC game developer.
He talked about programming as "jamming", using the term the same way
musicians do.  I thought it was a very good analogy - implies a very
smooth and natural process of creation.

IMO, the more "sensual" (ie see/hear/smell/touch/taste) we can make
our development tools, the more efficient and creative the development
process will become.  Visual programming is just a big step in this
direction.

-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
----------------------------------------------------------