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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,4feb499c05063194 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!newshub.sdsu.edu!elnk-nf2-pas!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net.POSTED!01cc3b7c!not-for-mail Reply-To: "Richard Riehle" From: "Richard Riehle" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: <2m2j9gFhf4cpU1@uni-berlin.de> <1090263815.244230@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> Subject: Re: Artistically creative expression has no role in software design X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2004 16:14:35 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.81.222.176 X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net X-Trace: newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net 1092068075 66.81.222.176 (Mon, 09 Aug 2004 09:14:35 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2004 09:14:35 PDT Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:2634 Date: 2004-08-09T16:14:35+00:00 List-Id: "Hyman Rosen" wrote in message news:W%3Lc.24894$F8.17744@nwrdny02.gnilink.net... > > Who said anything about beauty? I was sarcastically noting that office > buildings and bridges are in fact almost never identical, even though > their functions are essentially simple - one contains offices and the > other spans waterways. > This observation is correct at one level of abstraction. When one takes an architectural view, it looks a little different. One of the key ideas in software engineering is that of "levels of abstraction." This is a fundamental property of derived types (classes) in object-oriented programming, or object modeling. Although each building is different, there are architectural similarities for most buildings. The construction materials are different, the height is different for each instance, the number of doors and windows (if any) are different, but the underlying functionality, across a given domain, is likely to be similar. This architectural view mainifests itself in a large number of day-to-day artifacts. For some of those artifacts, the fundamental architecture has not changed in hundreds of years. I don't believe I need to give a list of examples since my assertion would seem to be self-evident. Richard Riehle