Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!wuarchive!cs.utexas.edu!milano!cadillac!vaughan@mcc.com
From: vaughan@mcc.com (Paul Vaughan)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: C++, Object Design Methodologies an
Message-ID: <12150@cadillac.CAD.MCC.COM>
Date: 15 Oct 90 19:00:31 GMT
References: <24872@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU> <4800106@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: news@cadillac.CAD.MCC.COM
Reply-To: vaughan@mcc.com (Paul Vaughan)
Organization: MCC VLSI CAD Program
Lines: 30
In-reply-to: johnson@m.cs.uiuc.edu

I've worked on a project with only 3 people (ok, so it ain't exactly
OOPIL), but involving on the order of 100K lines of code.  We did not
encounter any "object integration" problem, as mentioned by a previous
poster.  We divided the project like this: each person worked on his
own set of objects.  One of us worked on base class stuff and also a
particular functionality segment that tied in closely with the base
classes.  The base classes went into a library that the other two of
us used.  Another worked on application oriented stuff that would be
"used" by a developer or sophisticated user who was extending the
system.  The third worked on stuff that formed an initial library of
such extensions (and was designed to be extensible itself).  When we
wanted to design something new into the interfaces between objects
(that is add or change a member function declaration), we'd get
together and figure it out.  The guy who did application oriented
stuff ended up making a suite of extension level stuff to test his
code, but these test classes were far less complicated than the
classes the third guy was working on.  The third guy (extension level)
wrote driver programs to test stuff during the early stages.
Occasionally mock ups of the application level classes were created.
I think the division of labor put more work on the application level
guy, but we tried to help each other out all the time.

Part of the reason we didn't have much of an "integration" problem is
that we worked on a continuously demonstrable prototype.  From nearly
the very beginning there was some level of integration and some stuff
we could demonstrate.  We designed alot of that beginning stuff
together.  From then on, integration was an incremental process.

 Paul Vaughan, MCC CAD Program | ARPA: vaughan@mcc.com | Phone: [512] 338-3639
 Box 200195, Austin, TX 78720  | UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!milano!cadillac!vaughan