Re: Interesting but sensitive topic to discuss (HELP: - OOP and CASE tools)

[nickt@bain.oz.au (Nick Thurn)]

Alan Lovejoy (alovejoy@concentric.net) wrote:
[...]
> 
> Design notations have a different purpose: to communicate what the design of the
> program is to human readers--often ommitting details that should be specified
> if the program actually needs to be executed by a computer.  However, those
> details should be **optionally** specifiable, so that those cases in which
> such details are important at the "design level" can be dealt with there.
> 
> My thesis is that a design **methodology** should be able to handle designing
> a program regardless of language, although it will certainly need to take the
> differences between langauges into account.  If I have to use a completely
> different methodology for each part of the system that is implemented in a
> different language, something is wrong.
> 
Alan,

I think you are refering to what I would call domain modeling or analysis.
 
> Similarly, the design notation should be flexible enough to handle any and
> all implementation languages.  One may use different capabilities of the
> notation and/or and specify different designs due to the intended target
> language.  But if the notation becomes completely worthless in the face of
> an implementation language such as Self, perhaps there is something wrong with 
> the notation (and/or its underlying object metamodel) at a fundamental level.
>
Big ask! Personally I prefer something that fits *my* needs not tries to be
all things to all people. 
 
> 
> Agreed.  I am reacting to all the times I've seen people start their design process
> by drawing class hierarchies.
>
This may or may not be appropriate, horses for courses!

[...] 
> Yep.  The methodologists have some work to do.  I think patterns have started the right
> things happening in this regard.
> 
> Implementation?  But again, I think we are arguing terminology, not substance.
> 
> My practice has been to use the term "design" in way that is apparently more abstract
> than those who have read and objected to my posts.  
> 
I fear you are confusing analysis with design. I agree analysis should be largely
language independent (I guess this means you don't do any if you're creating
a C++ library :-). Design should not *be* implementation but it can not be done
without regard to the limitations and idiosyncrasies (?) of the implementation
language.

cheers
Nick (my opinions only)

> --
> Alan L. Lovejoy		|==============================================| 
> Smalltalk Consultant	|	Beware of Geeks bearing GIFs!	       |
> alovejoy@concentric.net |==============================================|