Re: Retrieving unnecessary data

On 2008-02-19 13:14:31 -0600, topmind <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> said:

On Feb 18, 9:21 am, Robert Martin <uncle...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2008-02-15 09:46:34 -0600, ShaneLM <shane.nieberg...@xxxxxxxx> said:

One last comment - Topmind mentioned that OO is a fad

No, it's not a fad.  It's deeply entrenched, and isn't going away for a
long long time.

That does not necessarily make it a non-fad.

Webster says: " a practice or interest followed for a time with exaggerated zeal ".

I will agree it has
become the de-facto way to interact with vendor-pre-packaged libraries
and that will probably stay with us a while (even if it does fall out
of style). As far as what *application* developers actually do, OOP is
*not* entrenched. To them, OOP is treated like vegetables: something
they are taught should be consumed more, but in practice mostly
ignore.

In other words: "practiced without zeal". I think when a practice is "mostly ignored" it can be safely assumed that it is no longer a fad.

Have you studied TDD?  (Test Driven Development).  Give that a try for

a few weeks and you will see how beneficial OO is when decoupling
modules to make them independently testable.

Evidence that OO makes testing easier?

Function f destroys the world when it is called. Function y calls function f. How do I test function y? I hide f behind a polymorphic interface called IF. I implement a fake version of f called MF. I pass MF to y and tell y to do it's thing. Then I ask MF if f was called. The world was not destroyed, and yet I know that y will call f.

--
Robert C. Martin (Uncle Bob)  | email: unclebob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Object Mentor Inc.            | blog:  www.butunclebob.com
The Agile Transition Experts  | web:   www.objectmentor.com
800-338-6716                  |



.