Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!munnari.oz.au!bruce!goanna!pnm
From: pnm@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Paul Big-Ears Menon)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: CASE - The Emperor has no clothes on!
Keywords: CASE rubbish
Message-ID: <3205@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au>
Date: 9 Jun 90 10:04:26 GMT
References: <37538@genrad.UUCP>
Organization: Comp Sci, RMIT, Melbourne, Australia
Lines: 35

charlie@genrad.com (Charlie D. Havener) writes:

>...
>The CRC ( Class Responsibility Collabortators ) method is one that uses 4 
>by 6 index
>cards and it seems well on it's way to becoming a standard technique.
	
	I'm looking at this method to teach first year students - and it
    appears the most appropriate, to get them used to "thinking like an object".
    I would dearly love to find some further refs on this, apart from the 
    OOPSLA proceedings.

>I've said enough. If anyone can provide a substantive rebuttal I would 
>like to hear it.
	I can't, I can add something to explain why though (you mentioned it
	too).  CASE tools mean money, books, courses - a whole business.
	No one wants to promote something which doesn't make money.  As I
	see it, Object-Oriented design is *intuitive*, it's simple, but
	intangible - ie, there are no rules, formal methods/procedures
	one follows.  It is, in a sense, still an art to determine class
	structure, etc..  What CASE guys hate is - it's not strictly top-down, 
	has no flow-charts, nor structure diagrams.  CRC is ample, 
	technology free and is a great way to utilise those boxes of unused
	punch cards.  I am open to alternate views though and would also 
	like to hear them.

    Paul Menon,
    Dept of Computer Science,
    Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, 
    124 Latrobe Street,
    Melbourne 3001, 
    Victoria, Australia.

pnm@goanna.cs.rmit.OZ.AU
PH:	+61 3 660 3209