Re: OO Design induces an existential crisis

>
> Failure to understand the importance of change, how to reflect
> change, and how to design for change, is a fundamental problem
> for novices in object technology. It seems this is also a frequent
> problem for those who have a long experience with object
> technology.

Horse sh8t! I have been using change-scenario-metrics for years in
debates, and OO'ers will eventually reject that idea when you corner
them, or at least waffle around. They will often start talking about
XP-style "refactoring" when I show how polymorphism cannot handle
random changes[1] as well. They just keep lathering on layers and more
layers of indirection. In other words, they willingly surrender to the
Change Gods.

OO cannot stand up to the Sword of Change!

[1] I should note that some OO'ers disagree that change is
random/unpredictable, and suggest that there is some kind of "tree cop"
force out there to herd the shape of change into a polymorphic and/or
inheritance shape. But so far that is a fairy tale (like most OO
"evidence").

>
> Once this is understood, there is no existential crisis.
>
> Richard Riehle

-T-
oop.ismad.com

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OO Design induces an existential crisis
    ... Mike Austin wrote: ... >>>change, and how to design for change, is a fundamental problem ... >> inheritance shape. ... > inheritance and polymorphism, and when not to. ...
    (comp.object)
  • Re: OO Design induces an existential crisis
    ... change, and how to design for change, is a fundamental problem for novices in object technology. ... It seems this is also a frequent problem for those who have a long experience with object technology. ... They will often start talking about XP-style "refactoring" when I show how polymorphism cannot handle random changesas well. ... and suggest that there is some kind of "tree cop" force out there to herd the shape of change into a polymorphic and/or inheritance shape. ...
    (comp.object)