Re: Test Driven Development Sample
From: Universe (universe_at_covad.net)
Date: 12/08/03
- Next message: Universe: "Re: Test Driven Development"
- Previous message: Ryan Kinderman: "Re: Class hierarchy design question"
- In reply to: Paul Sinnett: "Re: Test Driven Development Sample"
- Next in thread: Ron Jeffries: "Re: Test Driven Development Sample"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 01:31:35 -0500
"Paul Sinnett" <paul.sinnett@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> Ron Jeffries wrote:
> > When the next person comes along, he is likely to understand
bowling, and
> > to be looking for bowling ideas like strike, spare, and such in the
code.
> > If he doesn't find them, his work will be deterred.
> I think when the next person comes along, if he understood bowling, he
would
> not have much trouble. However if he didn't understand bowling but
only had
> the requirements, then he'd be looking for ideas like strike, spare,
and
> such.
Still what would be the more intuitive, hence likely more "readable",
least likely to be misunderstood, and significantly have common
reference landmarks associated with all primary domain abstractions and
relationships?
Especially if the OO (more OO) spirited code did not have qualitatively
greater time, or space overhead, the wisdom of going with that code
fairly shouts itself out.
It's in large part about maintenance and enhancement developers being
empowered to optimally fulfill client use case requirements.
Elliott
-- Be bold, be artistically imaginative, yet scientifically grounded -- DO GREAT OO MODELLING WITH EXPRESSIVE DOMAIN OBJECTS OF ALL TYPES!!
- Next message: Universe: "Re: Test Driven Development"
- Previous message: Ryan Kinderman: "Re: Class hierarchy design question"
- In reply to: Paul Sinnett: "Re: Test Driven Development Sample"
- Next in thread: Ron Jeffries: "Re: Test Driven Development Sample"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|