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: 1108a1,b87849933931bc93
X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public
X-Google-Thread: 114809,b87849933931bc93
X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,b87849933931bc93
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Thread: 11cae8,b87849933931bc93
X-Google-Attributes: gid11cae8,public
X-Google-Thread: f43e6,b87849933931bc93
X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public
From: ell@access4.digex.net (Ell)
Subject: Re: What is wrong with OO ?
Date: 1996/12/14
Message-ID: <58t3k7$7a9@news4.digex.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 204019334
organization: The Universe
followup-to: 
 comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.lnag.java,comp.object,comp.software-eng
newsgroups: 
 comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.lnag.java,comp.object,comp.software-eng
Date: 1996-12-14T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


drush@zakalwe.raleigh.ibm.com wrote:
: Elliott (Ell@access1.digex.net) wrote:
: >Do you all have any objections to object gurus other than that most of
: >them see OO in the real world, or human cognition?  Do you all object to
: >the way most object gurus emphasize that planning should lead coding? 
: >What what concretely is you alls beef?
 
:Regarding Objects & "real-world" modeling: I have also seen this as primarily
:a political ploy. Yes there are objects in the real world, but (nearly) as soon
:as you start doing analysis you are working in an abstracted realm. The real
:question is how to structure your abstractions, and that can frequently be
:done in many different ways.

True, yet I see that some designs more closely express the nature of
domain semantics than others.  Why not go with the closer ones?  They
should be easier to maintain down the line, as they are more intuitive.
 
:The "real-world" is the system that you're replacing. To inflict that structure
:on the system you're designing can be a *BIG* mistake.

Sometimes we want to mirror an existing "real-world" manual process, and
at others we want to utilize domain abstractions to create new systems. 
In either case hewing close to domain semantics offers at the very least
greater understandability for developers and maintenance staff.  In my
experience and observations nearly any design based on "real world"
semantics can be made to have minimal dependency between its parts.  And
thus be a practical, highly usable design.

: Happy Hackin'

Well Halloween celebration for "Hack-ula" just passed, but your sentiments
are clear.  :-}

Elliott