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

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

Alan Lovejoy (alovejoy@concentric.net) wrote:
> 
> My usage of the word "design" in the quote above is being interpreted in a way
> other than I intended.  In the context of the earlier posts, it should have been
> clear that by "design" I was referring to the objects that exist when the program 
> runs, and how they interact.  And I was **defining** the term design as I had
> used it, not trying to suggest that the implementation technology is not important,
> or that one should not consider such issues when producing a design or implementing
> a system!
> 
Alan,

These objects interpreted (compiled at runtime) or otherwise are 
surely the products of implementation. You seem to presuppose an implementation
which leads to a design, isn't this backwards?

The objects that exist when the program runs are a mixture of implementation
objects, domain objects, library objects, ui objects, comms... etc. Trying to
think back from them seems very unhelpful. IMHO even thinking *forward* to
these implementation objects too early is dangerous. 

Do you mean this or do I have it wrong?
 
cheers
Nick (my opinions only)