Re: OO Design induces an existential crisis



Nick Malik [Microsoft] wrote:
> > As far as why those p/r principles work, I don't fully know nor claim
> > to fully know. They just do.
>
> Of the many threads of discussion we have engaged in, I believe this one to
> have reached its limit.
>
> I asked for a single statement of principles for procedural development
> (with conditions) after you complained that OO development cannot be
> consistently applied. We differed about what that would mean, but, alas,
> the conditions I stated were not met.
>
> I'm not sure that there's much else to say on this. I maintain that a just
> and rational use of OO principles will create well-formed OO applications in
> a consistent manner. To this, I mean: Two talented designers, having not
> met each other, but both aware of the exact same problem, would, by
> following these principles, produce designs that are very similar to each
> other. That is as consistent as you can get in software.


Well, I and others just don't see how those vaguely-worded principles
will produce consistent business designs, let alone ones more
change-friendly than a p/r version.

Nor have you answered the problems I pointed out with Open-Closed
principle. I will assume you agree with the flaws unless answered, and
reference this discussion when another OO defender brings up OC in the
future.

Maybe you are right and using that list of alleged principles *does*
produce consistent and change-friendly biz code, but how to use them
"right" is not carefully and thoroughly documented anywhere. The
knowledge is possibly locked in the heads of a few elites and you are
one of the elites. It is like Quantum Physics: only about 100 in the
world people understand it. That is one possibility. To be frank, I
would bet money that another possibility is true: That you are blowing
smoke.

You are one of the few OO defenders who claim OO is consistent across
different designers, I would note. Most relunctantly concede that point
that I recall.

Either way, p/r is not objectively worse for custom business
applications and I will not let vague brochure-talk destroy it.

>
> Thank you for a lively and spirited discussion on the topic of consistency.
> I'll pick up with our other thread.
> --
> --- Nick Malik [Microsoft]

-T-

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OO Design induces an existential crisis
    ... > You are one of the few OO defenders who claim OO is consistent across ... p/r is not objectively worse for custom business ... >> and rational use of OO principles will create well-formed OO applications ... Two talented designers, having not ...
    (comp.object)
  • Re: OO Design induces an existential crisis
    ... after bashing OO on the basis that there is no consistent way to ... I don't see how those principles guarentee consistency. ... OC can objectively conflict with duplication factoring for ...
    (comp.object)
  • Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
    ... etc. Deriving what follows from those principles. ... Humans believe that PA is consistent. ... rely on mathematical principles that go beyond PA. ... "Human abilities surpass those of any machine" ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: How about some principles people?
    ... >> If you care about truth, be principled and consistent. ... >> you are nothing but a partisan shrill and hack that aren't worth the ... > If you want principles, consistency and truth, you came to the wrong ...
    (alt.politics.bush)