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: fac41,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 11cae8,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid11cae8,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public From: Carl Weidling Subject: Re: What is wrong with OO ? Date: 1996/12/06 Message-ID: <588g4v$jer@samba.rahul.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 202643973 references: <32A4659D.347A@shef.ac.uk> <32a5ceba.81462731@news.nstn.ca> organization: a2i network nntp-posting-user: cpw newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.lnag.java,comp.object,comp.software-eng Date: 1996-12-06T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <32a5ceba.81462731@news.nstn.ca>, Tom Bushell wrote: >On Wed, 04 Dec 1996 08:45:22 -0600, rmartin@oma.com (Robert C. Martin) >wrote: > >>harry@matilda.alt.net.au (Harry Protoolis) wrote: >> >>> The traditional techniques all suffered from a number of significant >>> flaws. Perhaps the most damaging one was what I (rather unkindly) think >>> of as 'The glorification of idiots' phenomenon. What I mean by this is >>> that projects were typically infested by a group of people who never >>> wrote any software, but spent most of the budget drawing diagrams that >>> the implementors never used. >> ... > >It is my growing opinion that this is a fundamental problem with all >"formal" design methods, not just OO design. The effort involved in >doing the design is as great or greater than doing the construction >(coding). Contrast this with doing the blueprints for a bridge - the >design effort is orders of magnitude cheaper than the construction. ... >I'm starting to believe that design and code don't make sense as >separate entities - the design should _become_ the code - the design >documents for an implemented system are used as the foundation of the ... I remember seeing a documentary about Gothic Cathedrals as examples of engineering. The commentary compared the way models are constructed first nowadays to test a design, and they showed models of cathedrals going through stress tests, but for those medieval masons, the building was also the engineering model. The flying buttresses for instance, were added when the masons saw how wind was blowing down the walls. On the other hand, wasn't there a famous example back in the 70s when 'top-level design' was first being expounded, where some big project for a newspaper or something was designed first and then coded and it worked. I remember this being cited a lot when I first started programming, can anyone recall details or hard facts about that? -- Cleave yourself to logodedaly and you cleave yourself from clarity.