Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!henry.jpl.nasa.gov!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!hacgate!ashtate!atsun!dwiggins From: dwiggins@atsun.a-t.com (Don Dwiggins) Newsgroups: comp.object Subject: Re: Object-Oriented Requirements Analysis: An Introduction Message-ID: Date: 4 Dec 89 22:31:09 GMT References: <628@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu> Sender: dwiggins@ashtate.UUCP Organization: Ashton-Tate, Inc. Lines: 27 In-reply-to: eberard@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu's message of 23 Nov 89 15:34:57 GMT In article <628@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu> eberard (Edward Berard) writes: First, as I have stated in several articles in the past, the development part of the object-oriented life-cycle is best accomplished using a recursive/parallel approach, i.e., "analyze a little, design a little, implement a little, and test a little." You've mentioned this approach in several articles, but I don't remember seeing a published reference for it in your otherwise comprehensive bibliographies. I must admit that the name leaves me a "little" uneasy (:-); read naively, there doesn't seem to be much structure to it. How does one know when to do which, and when to stop and do something else? How is progress to be measured in this model? etc... It does remind me a bit of Boehm's spiral model. One possible point of difference is that Boehm's model is designed to improve the management of risk factors (indeed, it seems that risk management is what led Boehm to propose this model), and doesn't explicitly presuppose or preclude object (or any other) orientation to analysis, design, implementation, etc. I'd be interested in a "comparison and contrast" of the two approaches, and a discussion of the justification for the quoted sentence. -- Don Dwiggins "Solvitur Ambulando" Ashton-Tate, Inc. dwiggins@ashtate.a-t.com dwiggins@ashtate.uucp Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com