🚀 go-pugleaf

Huh? (wtf@computer.com) wrote:
: ell@access1.digex.net (Ell) wrote:
: 
: [snip]
: >
: >I think the tendency to go with a paradigm which appeals to the intuitive
: >understanding of the intellect [is a good thing].  There is something
: >significant there that
: >can be of vital importance, and value to computer science and software
: >engineering, imo.  It is this intellectual appeal, which underlies the
: >desire, and advice to embed, and layer OOA (most recently Rumbaugh in
: >JOOP, but also Booch and Jacobson from the past) as the primary
: >orientation of OOD.
: >
: [snip]
 
: Excuse me, but what the hell are you trying say?  The first sentence
: is a real beauty, sort of like you got lost...  Drivel, drivel,
: drivel.  Politicians could learn a lot from you.  

Read the above of what I intended to say.  I'm only human, and make
errors in expressing my thoughts.  Given what I added, was it such a
*big* mistake?  I think not.  If all you got from it was drivel, I think
you have a problem with proper OOA perspective, or philosophy.

: with expounders of Methodology A, Methodology B, etc. is that they get
: tied up in the methodology, and forget that projects require tangible
: results in a defined time scale (often very short).  

I don't think I've ever implied that a project doesn't require tangible
results.  I've always advocated real world grounded, iterative, and
incremental software development process.  This includes getting a running
skeleton of a project up and running as soon as possible, AFTER proper
initial analysis and architecture.  Do you have a problem with that?

: When you give an
: application to an end user, do you think they care if it was designed
: with structured methods, OOD, etc.?

Yes, some users do want the most intuitive, easily traceable, and
maintaneable software designs for the benefit of future application
programmers.  This saves the users both time, and money.

Elliott