Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!decwrl!argosy!kentb
From: kentb@argosy.UUCP (Kent Beck)
Newsgroups: comp.object
Subject: Re: Berard's comments about CRC
Message-ID: <750@argosy.UUCP>
Date: 8 Nov 90 16:06:40 GMT
Sender: news@argosy.UUCP
Reply-To: kentb@maspar.com ()
Organization: MasPar Computer Corp, Sunnyvale CA
Lines: 15

Ed Berard made several sweeping statements about CRC in his recent posting
which I will rebut.  First is his characterization of CRC as a
methodology.  CRC is a method of finding and explaining objects- it
deliberately does not address many issues that must be addressed by
a life-cycle-wide methodology.  As such, it isn't in competition with
Booch, although Wirfs-Brock et. al. have pushed the responsibility 
driven approach onto much the same turf.  Second is his contention that
CRC is not useful for medium to large projects.  I use CRC (and the 
experience of many people I talked to at OOPSLA bears this out) to
explore the structure of a problem in a collaborative setting and to
explain the intent of a design, whether to a user, maintainer, or
manager.  There are times in the life of a large project when you must
notate every detail and Booch's family of notations and process for
applying them ably serve this purpose, but there are other kinds of
design which call for a more engaging and approachable notation.