Re: Let's put this to rest
- From: "Davor" <davorss@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 26 Jun 2006 11:37:46 -0700
AndyW wrote:
quote:
Lets' start with something quite simple. The CS101 stack (LIFO) .
Define the stack with all its properties (push, top etc) using
"translation OOA" .
end-quote:
Now, what your question had to do with the original I do not know.
Also, as pointed out I think in another post, your question about
"producing a stack" is purely a design thing but you refer to doing it
using analysis.
Lehman has posted at least 100 pages worth of email in which he's
claiming that OOA == OOD without NFRs taken into account. So, an MDA
solution *must be*:
OOA: Stack
OOD: Stack
OOP: Stack
Now, please just give us the OOA Stack specification that I can plug
into an MDA tool so that I get an OOD and OOP Stack models out.
I have also given an example for which the solution/design/program is
*addition of two numbers*. The problem is so simple that everyone from
1st graders and up can solve it, and there are so many problems which
map clearly into a solution in terms of addition of two numbers. So,
can you please give us the MDA OOA model for any of these problems, or
domain systems, for which the clear solution is addition of two
numbers.
The arguments/excuses/BUTs here are similar to like if a C++ compiler
developer was asked to demonstrate if his tool can compile a C++
statement which adds two numbers, and he replies "It's not really clear
that a program that adds two numbers is really a program - your
requirements are not right - but, my C++ compiler is very good for
compilation of space shuttle modules of over 5MLOC." and then gives us
a lecture on how he sees requirements specifications for space shuttle
modules should be done.
And just when I start to think that *books* were *already* written
about this thing called MDA that cannot handle even basic OOA/D/P
constructs and examples... sigh :-(...
Davor
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Let's put this to rest
- From: Lee Riemenschneider
- Re: Let's put this to rest
- References:
- Re: Let's put this to rest
- From: H. S. Lahman
- Re: Let's put this to rest
- From: S Perryman
- Re: Let's put this to rest
- From: H. S. Lahman
- Re: Let's put this to rest
- From: S Perryman
- Re: Let's put this to rest
- From: H. S. Lahman
- Re: Let's put this to rest
- From: Lee Riemenschneider
- Re: Let's put this to rest
- From: S Perryman
- Re: Let's put this to rest
- From: Lee Riemenschneider
- Re: Let's put this to rest
- From: S Perryman
- Re: Let's put this to rest
- From: Lee Riemenschneider
- Re: Let's put this to rest
- From: Lee Riemenschneider
- Re: Let's put this to rest
- From: S Perryman
- Re: Let's put this to rest
- From: Lee Riemenschneider
- Re: Let's put this to rest
- From: S Perryman
- Re: Let's put this to rest
- From: AndyW
- Re: Let's put this to rest
- Prev by Date: Re: Let's put this to rest
- Next by Date: Re: Let's put this to rest
- Previous by thread: Re: Let's put this to rest
- Next by thread: Re: Let's put this to rest
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|