Home > Archive > Software Engineering > October 2007 > Re: Re. Philosophy and Formal Methods.
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Re: Re. Philosophy and Formal Methods.
|
|
| topmind 2007-10-03, 10:06 pm |
|
problems@gmail wrote:
> Valery Kolesnyk wrote:-
>
> I thought I'd try to decode the 'english' to mine some possibly new
> ideas, but this *.ru URL 'failed' for me.
>
> A respondent wrote:
> That's really a nice, crisp description of Structural Programming
> and OO and their relationship.
As described under the "Structured Analysis & OO Analysis", this is
misleading, and borders on hooey. OO gives *no free lunch*, only trade-
offs which may or may not match the pattern of future changes (usually
not, in my experience with custom biz apps). Dividing domain nouns
into sub-types is often an excercise in futility. Types are not
powerful enough a concept in my experience to properly classify the
variation-on-a-theme patterns encountered in actual front-line apps.
It only works well on "toy" textbook examples (usually shapes,
animals, and device-drivers).
-T-
oop.ismad.com
| |
| Phlip 2007-10-03, 10:06 pm |
| topmind wrote:
>
> As described under the "Structured Analysis & OO Analysis"
Mr Manners reminds the Gentle Poster to review topmind's posting history
before taking the bait here.
--
Phlip
| |
| Mr. Workflow 2007-10-24, 7:16 pm |
| On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 17:01:22 -0700, topmind wrote:
>
> Trying to start something yet again? I did not saying any derogatory
> about you here. Hey, where's the Grand Proof That OOP Is Better, by
> the way? Dog ate it?
Pay little attention to Philip. Take his mother's lead.
--
´Users don˙t know what they want. So XXXX 'em"
|
|
|
|
|