Re: Object Oriented?

Subject: Re: Object Oriented?
From: "Steven J. Owens" <puff -at- NETCOM -dot- COM>
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1996 18:40:31 -0800

> [...much discussion on pros & cons of object oriented programming...]

Much of the foregoing has been quite accurate and interesting.
OO is neither the end-all, be-all some of its proponents claim nor is
it useless snake-oil. Ahem. In my humble opinion, of course.

Notwithstanding, the clearest statement I've seen of the concept
of OO is:

Systems are generally composed of processes and objects.
Traditional software analysis, design and implementation looks at

Processes tend to change more than objects do. Changes in
processes tend to have wider-reaching effects than changes in objects.

Tackling the problem from the perspective of objects is more
effective; more flexible, better able to respond to changes in the
system both in the analysis-design-implementation cycle and over the
lifeycle of the product.

Steven J. Owens
puff -at- netcom -dot- com

Previous by Author: Re: Tests to Screen Candidates for Tech Communicator Positions
Next by Author: Re: Impact of information explosion on our profession
Previous by Thread: [no subject]
Next by Thread: contractions in tech.writing

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads