Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!hacgate!janus!cws
From: cws@janus.Quotron.com (Craig W. Shaver)
Newsgroups: comp.object
Subject: Re: OOA vs OOD (was: Booch GOOD - Coad/Yourdon BAD)
Summary: disagree
Message-ID: <651@janus.Quotron.com>
Date: 10 Nov 90 23:36:19 GMT
References: <0B010001.imp7d9@bse.com>
Organization: Quotron Systems Inc., Los Angeles
Lines: 31

In article <0B010001.imp7d9@bse.com>, eberard@bse.com (Edward V. Berard) writes:
... other stuff ....
berard reply follows ...
> 
> Functional decomposition approaches localize information around functions,
> whereas object-oriented approaches localize information around objects. Using
> a functional decomposition approach first breaks apart high level objects
> and scatters information on these objects into different functional components.

> 
> It is far better to use an object-oriented decomposition technique to partition
> your system into manageable pieces to which you can then apply other
> object-oriented techniques.
> 
> 				-- Ed

This is a blanket statement and sounds a little religious to me.
I believe the best approach is to take a top down cut as the first design step.
But, keep the analysis/design at a high (very abstract) level.
Then isolate objects and decide what software components you have that may
work, plus what you will have to build.  This part of the analysis/design
being more bottom up and detailed.

Craig W. Shaver

================================================================
Legend Systems Inc.    	| Phone: (206) 348-0713
                        | uucp: hacgate!janus!cws
Post Office Box 40297	| craig@tradr2.quotron.com
Bellevue, WA  98004
================================================================