Re: Is ADA as good for graphics programming as C? (WAS: Re: Avoiding the second historic mistake)

[ell@access5.digex.net (Ell)]

Robert C. Martin (rmartin@oma.com) wrote:
:
: Matthew Heaney wrote:
: > 
: > Oh, yes, I know the argument: Humans use classification to simplify things,
: > so we should use classification to build software, blah blah blah.  Well
: > here's the real scoop: humans use _abstraction_ to simplify their world.
: > Humans view and build systems as multi-level, heirarchical structures,
: > using _aggregation_.  So why build software systems any differently?
 
: I sympathize with this point of view.   But let me add a bit more to
: the heresy. Inheritance, as defined in OO languages, *is* a form of
: composition!  A derived class is *composed* of its base class along
: with any other elements unique to the derivative.  

What's so heretical about using aggregation in OO?  That's what MS COM
technology is based on.

BTW, you try to make it seem that you are holding a noble viewpoint worth
adopting in the face of the OO establishment.  But in fact diving right
into coding without holistic analysis, taking a piecemeal approach, and
not fully basing oneself in the domain model have been widely practiced in
software development by hackers and Coboy Coders everywhere for years and
years. 

Elliott
-- 
"The domain object model is the foundation of OOD."

"We should seek out proven optimal practices and use them."

	~~ The writer