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: 103376,6fc39bb88f30631d X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: john@assen.demon.co.uk (John McCabe) Subject: Re: HOOD? Date: 1996/07/02 Message-ID: <836340235.16937.0@assen.demon.co.uk>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 163353013 x-nntp-posting-host: assen.demon.co.uk references: <4rbcbf$n19@mailsrv2.erno.de> newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-07-02T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Franz.Kruse@erno.de (Franz Kruse) wrote: >What is the general opinion of the Ada community about HOOD as a design method? >Franz Kruse I can't tell you the general opinion, only my opinion having used it over the last few years - only up to the 3.1 definition. I think it works out as a fairly reasonable method, the only pitfall being that it couldn't handle "provided data" after version 3.0. From a purist point of view this is good for encapsulation and information hiding etc, but it can be bad for performance. Obviously the method isn't going to force you not to modify your code to break the rules, but if you're using a tool, you then get to the point where your design and your implementation (code) start to diverge. The other major problem with it is a lack of tool support. There never were many tools, they weren't particularly good anyway (especially HOOD Nice from Intecs - IPSYS is much better and still supported because of the EFA contract), and they appear to be being dropped from companies' repertoires. Finally, the hierarchy could cause problems with Ada 83, and (at least up to 3.1) the Object Based, rather than Object-Oriented nature was not totally ideally suited to e.g. C++ or Ada 95 (apparently). On the whole, it was OK but I think there are probably more suitable methods for most things. Best Regards John McCabe