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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fac41,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,4b06f8f15f01a568 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Loryn Jenkins Subject: Re: Which wastes more time? (Was Re: Software landmines (loops)) Date: 1998/09/08 Message-ID: <35F4F454.542516E4@s054.aone.net.au>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 388968879 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <35F06A58.F968BDE1@s054.aone.net.au> <35f48276.90997557@news.erols.com <35F42CAC.6F566DC7@s054.aone.net.au> X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: news.mel.aone.net.au 905245827 19255 203.102.238.32 (8 Sep 1998 09:10:27 GMT) Organization: TekRite Pty Ltd Mime-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: loryn@acm.org NNTP-Posting-Date: 8 Sep 1998 09:10:27 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-09-08T09:10:27+00:00 List-Id: Patrick Doyle wrote: > > In article <35F42CAC.6F566DC7@s054.aone.net.au>, > Loryn Jenkins wrote: > > > >Well, clearly that programmer isn't me. I very much do try to choose > >names for things at an appropriate level of abstraction. (In a real > >program, I'm likely to be slightly more specific than SIMULTON, too.) > > I pity the guy who has to come in after you and figure out what a > SIMULTON is. Why not use a real English word to describe the > concept? We're talking about a simulation of a person here. Good point. I hadn't thought too hard about that name. I was just using a different one to emphasise the difference between this simulated 'person' and an abstraction of a 'real one' (in the MIS sense). > You have a good point that if you commit to the PERSON-CAR_OWNER > thing then you've locked yourself out of modelling someone who > sells his car. So, it's a design decision. If you're not going > to model that, then the extra complexity of the role pattern > may not be justified. Tell me something: How would you envisage PERSON <-- CAR_OWNER working together within a program? Loryn Jenkins