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: f43e6,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: sames@interaccess.com (Samuel S. Shuster) Subject: Re: OO, C++, and something much better! Date: 1997/01/27 Message-ID: <32efc6bb.4567428@nntp.interaccess.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 212542673 references: <32DFD972.37E4@concentric.net> <5bphq4$5js@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> <32E987FC.1FF2@rase.com> <32EB845C.68EB@interaccess.com> content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii organization: InterAccess, Chicago's best Internet Service Provider mime-version: 1.0 newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.object,comp.software-eng Date: 1997-01-27T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Robert, >The danger is that the "test everything as-you-go" style degrades into >"design everything as-you-go" Is that a fact? Or just your perception of a danger? Where is anything but your conjecture to base this misstatement of causality? >But once again, this kind of dynamic environment can be very dangerous. >it is the antithesis of the careful approach using formal or semi-formal >tools that is the key to genera[t]ing large scale reliable software. On the other hand, the static environment can be very dangerous. It is the antithesis of productivity using flexible or semi-flexable tools that is the key to generating successful applications. Your argument is as devoid of logic as my above parody. All environments can be dangerous if they are not used with rigor and discipline. That has a lot more to do with being a professional and using a coherent methodology than it does with the environment with which the results are implemented. What's the deal? Are you basing your judgements of dynamic environments on the XBase world or something? That "Programming For The Masses" idiocy did indeed produce a huge pool of incompetent developers who know little of professional development, and want to know even less. From this did spring an even larger amount of slop and waste product. That though, had a lot more to do with the "They Gave Me dBase, Now I Is A Programmer" environment of that community than it did with the fact that XBase was / is a dynamic environment. That community never did anything to promote a professional attitude towards development. The Object Technology environment is quite the opposite. You can not take the failing of one community and blithely apply it to all others that share one or two common features. The issues of static vs dynamic environments are mutually exclusive of cowboyism vs professionalism. It is simply brain dead to bring them into comparison. And So It Goes Sames ============================================================================ sshuster@parcplace.com ParcPlace-Digitalk Consultant All opinions are my own. ============================================================================