🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <bksDpv1r1.qI@netcom.com>,
Bradley K. Sherman <bks@netcom.com> wrote:
 >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.

I agree. Good writing that makes for good reading.

 >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.

And those puerlie and simplistic analyses and implementations do occur. It's
natural to point the finger at the difficult OO paradigm.