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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 109fba,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: fac41,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 11cae8,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid11cae8,public From: harry@matilda.alt.net.au (Harry Protoolis) Subject: Re: What is wrong with OO ? Date: 1996/12/06 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 202650561 references: <587veh$ng8@news3.digex.net> organization: alt.computer pty ltd reply-to: harry@alt.net.au 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: On 6 Dec 1996 02:12:33 GMT, Ell wrote: >Tom Bushell (tbushell@fox.nstn.ns.ca) wrote: >: >: Robert C. Martin wrote: >: >: >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. > >So then we had the elevation of self-centered hackers, eh? Not that all >such plans were good, but the coders should be following some >architectural plan 95% of the time. I suppose I started the name-calling, so I can't complain can I :-) In any event, that is not what I am advocating at all. What I am suggesting is that OO techinques *can* be sold to implementors, because good OO design *does* map to meaningful implementations. (unlike, IMHO, any form of traditional structured design) As a result, IME, you can convince your implementors to do design themselves. This has the multiple benefits of getting better, more meaninful designs done, *and* not getting them ignored. If you then involve *the same group of people* in the up front problem analysis you get a win-win-win scenario, as they are now basing implementable designs on analysis results in which they have a stake. This is the beauty of 'Architect-also-implements', the chief architect can lead all three components of the process with some credibility, and can handle the most awful of all questions asked to a 'pure' Analyst, namely 'How the hell do I implement this ?', and avoid the most soul destroying (and project killing) of all answers ... 'I don't care, that's just an implementation problem'. H p.s. Elliot, your newsreader is (still) badly broken, all your postings are appearing out of sync in their respective threads. Are you using 'Followup' to respond to postings ? - Harry Protoolis alt.computer pty ltd harry@alt.net.au software development consultants