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: 103376,7f8fc37d854731d6 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,7f8fc37d854731d6 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public X-Google-Thread: 10461e,7f8fc37d854731d6 X-Google-Attributes: gid10461e,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: <56bkvl$2ka@plath.bain.oz.au>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 196159176 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> <32890CB7.19B5@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: > > 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)