Re: OO Design induces an existential crisis



Nick Malik [Microsoft] wrote:
> >> If I compare your principles to those described by Robert Martin,
> >> I'll go with the latter. They, at least, make sense.
> >
> > Unfortunately, Robert Martin's principles are too vague. The duplicate
> > case/switch list "mental coupling" discussion and the
> > report-versus-calc-summing-loop discussion made that pretty clear I
> > beleive.
>
> The comments that you are quoting are not the principles that I spoke of.
>
> Please see
> http://www.butunclebob.com/ArticleS.UncleBob.PrinciplesOfObjectOrientedDesign
>

Those are mostly shown in terms of systems software and device drivers.
I have already conceded that domain may do better under OOP (but am not
an authority of that domain so cannot fully comment).

Are there any OO gurus out there who want to take on custom business
applications? Any?

(crickets...)

The few biz justification examples I've seen still beleive in
hierchical taxomies to manage variations of biz objects. That is a
no-no. The real world in general does NOT change in a hierarchical way.
(We already had a huge debate about this last month. Nobody presented
good open evidence for trees, only anecdotes and intimidation) And if
you don't use hierarchies, OO gets rather messy.

>
> --
> --- Nick Malik [Microsoft]

-T-

.