🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4kr166$1ep@news.nstn.ca>, dbshapco <dbshapco@fox.nstn.ca> wrote:
...
>In a nutshell, any anticipation of the solution domain pollutes analysis, to 
>the worst case in which analysis is nothing more than an alternate way of 
>describing implementation (ditto design).  OOP should generate objects which 
>correspond to entities in the problem domain and the relationships suggested 
>by a well defined taxonomy, and the quality of the classes and class 
>hierarchy vary directly with the quality of analysis.  Puerile and 
>simplisitic analysis based on inappropriate or forced correspondences usually 
>results in crippled and incomprehensible classes and class hierarchies.
...
Excellent article.  Obviously written by a practitioner.

However, well defined taxonomies are not easy to come by.  The
problem is that the taxonomy of the woman on the warehouse floor
is *not* the same as the taxonomy of the guy in accounts
receivable which differs yet again from the salesman, ad 
nauseum throughout the customer's organization.  Each person
chops up the flow of work in a different way.

    --bks