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,7f8fc37d854731d6 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,7f8fc37d854731d6 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 10461e,7f8fc37d854731d6 X-Google-Attributes: gid10461e,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,7f8fc37d854731d6 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,7f8fc37d854731d6 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public From: nickt@bain.oz.au (Nick Thurn) Subject: Re: Interesting but sensitive topic to discuss (HELP: - OOP and CASE tools) Date: 1996/11/13 Message-ID: <56bjdd$2ka@plath.bain.oz.au>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 196138564 references: <32813322.41C6@kyebek3.kjist.ac.kr> <55pqr5$136a@grimsel.zurich.ibm.com> <328109CD.6685@concentric.net> <55v177$ufo@grimsel.zurich.ibm.com> <3283BB94.2D82@concentric.net> <32875B03.3729@iconcomp.com> <328903AD.2786@concentric.net> followup-to: comp.object,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.ai organization: Bain & Company newsgroups: comp.object,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.ai Date: 1996-11-13T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: 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 |==============================================|