Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!rutgers!usc!ucselx!petunia!news
From: jdudeck@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (John R. Dudeck)
Newsgroups: comp.object
Subject: Re: Seeking review of Booch's new book
Message-ID: <26a7f149.644@petunia.CalPoly.EDU>
Date: 21 Jul 90 06:08:09 GMT
References: <139084@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> <77500043@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Organization: Cal Poly State Univ,CSC Dept,San Luis Obispo,CA 93407
Lines: 28



In an article render@m.cs.uiuc.edu wrote:
>The inclusion of Ada is understandable...
>but I question it's use when it requires "coding 
>discipline" to do things in an OO manner.  Still, this may actually be good 
>for those software developers who have to use non-OO languages but wish to 
>experiment with OO design.  I think Booch recognizes this audience since he 
>supports both a "logical view" (pure OO) and a "physical view" (possibly 
>non-OO) of a system with his design notation.  This could widen the interest 
>in OO design and overcome the "cult" label that currently plagues it.

I think this is a very important observation that you make.  I belive that
object-oriented design is a very important means of getting a handle on
the complexity of our problems we are trying to solve.  But most of us are
not priveleged to progam in an object-oriented language.  Professionally
I do a lot of programming in DIBOL.  The rest of the time it is in C.

Up until recently I had read various articles on using OO discipline in
non-OO languages, but I never understood how it all fit together.  Now I
have started to grasp the concepts, thanks to a SE course I took.  But I
feel that there is a great need for books that will teach programmers how
to "think OO", even though they must program in other languages.

-- 
John Dudeck                                 "I always ask them, How well do
jdudeck@Polyslo.CalPoly.Edu                            you want it tested?"
ESL: 62013975 Tel: 805-545-9549                               -- D. Stearns