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: fac41,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,3d3f20d31be1c33a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public From: rodemann@mathematik.uni-ulm.de (Joerg Rodemann) Subject: Re: Separation of IF and Imp: process issue? Date: 1997/09/11 Message-ID: <341787a6.0@news.uni-ulm.de>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 271522346 References: <5v1gua$fkk@newshub.atmnet.net> <5v2k2n$1cfu$2@flood.weeg.uiowa.edu> <5v4095$h62@newshub.atmnet.net> <5v4g00$pjr@wdl1.wdl.lmco.com> <5v6mml$jac@newshub.atmnet.net> Followup-To: comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel Organization: University of Ulm, SAI, Germany Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel Date: 1997-09-11T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Darren New (dnew@zloty.fv.com) wrote: > Not at all. You still have the advantage that the specification is "in > your face" while you're editing the implementation, and hence less is > likely to get overlooked. You also have the advantage of not needing > to do that for small projects, or for helper modules that are private > to a single other module. You still have *all* the advantages. Well, you really must have huge screens...I myself prefer having to editor windows: one for the spec and one for the body. Otherwise those things that are currently interesting to me always happen to have just scrolled out of view. And one thing with Java I do not like at all ist this: you need to search the complete (and often long) file for getting an idea what methods, variables the class contains. I'd hav to write an extraction tool of my own and unfortunately I have no time for that right now. So, I do believe that you Eiffel programmers use a similar approach: normal view to the complete text and an overview by short-flat forms. (Strange word... :-) ) Thus your argument does not hold at all. Considering small projects, I'd like to cite Mr. G. Booch: "A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that worked." (Object-Oriented Analysis and Design with Applications, 2nd ed., 1994, p. 13) How are you migrating a small project to a big one, when your team decides the tool/class you wrote is suitable? Or if it simply keeps growing? Just some thoughts Yours Joerg -- rodemann@mathematik.uni-ulm.de | Dipl.-Phys. Joerg S. Rodemann Phone: ++49-(0)711-5090670 | Flurstrasse 21, D-70372 Stuttgart, Germany -------------------------------+--------------------------------------------- rodemann@rus.uni-stuttgart.de | University of Stuttgart, Computing Center Phone: ++49-(0)711-685-5815 | Visualization Department, Office: 0.304 Fax: ++49-(0)711-678-7626 | Allmandring 30a, D-70550 Stuttgart, Germany