Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!lll-winken!lll-lcc!unisoft!hoptoad!hsfmsh!dumbcat!marc
From: marc@dumbcat.UUCP (Marco S Hyman)
Newsgroups: comp.object
Subject: Re: Art vs. Engineering & Method vs. Genius
Summary: Why THIS object and not THAT object
Message-ID: <114@dumbcat.UUCP>
Date: 23 Oct 89 00:21:30 GMT
References: <1989Oct20.000957.22505@mentor.com>
Reply-To: marc@dumbcat.UUCP (Marco S Hyman)
Organization: MH Software, Hayward, Ca.
Lines: 36

msellers@mentor.com (Mike Sellers) writes:
    [Discussion from several people on whether an Object-oriented
    methodology exists deleted]

    In effect, I believe we are at the point where we are doing Art (or at least
    schtick), not science or engineering.  Once some of the methods that are
    currently being used by the brighter ones among us have been filtered out
    of the background noise and codified for use by the rest of us, we will have
    the building blocks for some methodologies for object-oriented design.  

I agree in principal but would use the word _craft_ in place of _art_.
Object-oriented design is being taught like the crafts of old, from
craftmaster to journeyman, from journeyman to aprentice.  How many times
have you had to explain why a problem was partitioned into a particular set
of objects?  How many times have you been at a loss for words other than
``it feels right'' and then go on to explain how you think that the
partitioning you used will solve some future problems or make it easier to
change things later on -- just in case you ``guessed'' wrong?

I was at a conference a year an a half ago where the question most asked of
those preaching the object-oriented way was ``How do you decide what should
be an object?''  The frustration level of the questioners grew with each
non-answer.  There is a large number of programmers who believe that object-
oriented design and programming will solve many of their problems -- the
programming panacea of the 1990s.  This group is looking for the rules that
will turn them into instant object-oriented programmers.  

I believe the best way to _discover_ a working methodology will be to
analyze several large systems put together using object-oriented techniques
and see what worked and what didn't.  Until this happens the best we can do
is teach by example.  And hope that not too many of those initial systems
are failures.

--marc
-- 
// Marco S. Hyman		{ames,pyramid,sun}!pacbell!dumbcat!marc