🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4kma54$11m@news4.digex.net>, Ell <ell@access5.digex.net> wrote:
 >Kazimir Kylheku (c2a192@ugrad.cs.ubc.ca) wrote:
 >: In article <4kkkbm$4ld@news4.digex.net>, Ell <ell@access4.digex.net> wrote:
 >: >You are in "hell" when don't see the existence and importance of
 >: >Object-Oriented Analysis (OOA), in my opinion.  But that is nature of some
 >: >types in the OO arena. 
 > 
 >:The OO arena is a philosophical one. I don't particularly subscribe to the 
 >: view
 >:that there ought to be a naive correspondence between software entities and
 >:some ``real world'' entities, except when it's utterly convenient, and on
 >:the third Wednesday of every month.
 >: 
 >:The whole thing is a little childish and naive when taken too far.
 >
 >You know what is a real crime is the time and money wasted by those who
 >ignore and downplay OOA.

That is probably true. But a healthy dose of skepticism is always a good idea,
I think. There are no holy grails.

I think that what attracts people to object-oriented paradigms (whether that
includes OOA or not) is a sort of intellectual appeal, which, I suspect, often
takes precedence over practical considerations.

The fact is that OOA,D&P involve some *difficult* concepts that even very
bright computer scientists struggle with. Developing the right object-oriented
abstraction for a given system is not an easy task, and neither is the
development of truly reusable components.
--