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: fac41,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,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: 202654147 references: <5883q1$oae@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.object,comp.software-eng Date: 1996-12-06T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: On 6 Dec 1996 03:26:57 GMT, Ell wrote: >Richie Bielak (richieb@calfp.com) wrote: >: Matthew Gream wrote: >: >: [...] >: >: > How flexible is the software? This has a lot to do with architecture: >: > "if you don't get the architecture right up front, you may as well pack >: > up and go home" [quote made by a fellow engineer]. > >: These kinds of statements always bother me. How are you supposed to >: know that the architecture (or design for that matter) is right? >: >: The only way I see is to implement it and see how it works. That's >: why the iterative software development makes sense, you get to try >: out out your ideas in practice and adjust them as needed. > >The point as far as I'm concerned is that an architecture should guide >_all_ coding. That is even if the initial architecture is later modified, >or later scrapped. Despite being a 'self centered hacker' (I like that title :-)) I actually agree with you Elliot. You should at least sketch your architecture out after your analysis is complete, (where analysis == primary use cases), and design to it. The possibility of being wildly wrong in your first cut at architecture is no excuse for not trying, after all if you are right then you win and if you are wrong then at least you have something to iterate on. H - Harry Protoolis alt.computer pty ltd harry@alt.net.au software development consultants