Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!stjhmc!p88.f15.n300.z1.fidonet.org!Lawson.English
From: Lawson.English@p88.f15.n300.z1.fidonet.org (Lawson English)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: OOP--What do you think?
Message-ID: <7822.280F0E44@stjhmc.fidonet.org>
Date: 16 Apr 91 13:30:39 GMT
Sender: ufgate@stjhmc.fidonet.org (newsout1.26)
Organization: FidoNet node 1:300/15.88 - Tucson Apple Core, Tucson AZ
Lines: 39

Kevin Hegg writes in a message to All

KH> Yes, I thought their class library and examples were cute, but 
KH> they made some standard Mac code a lot more complicated and unreadable 
KH> than it needs to be. I decided not to use their stuff anymore 
KH> because I am not comfortable with the structure of their code 
KH> and their non-standard OO language (not C++). I use MPW C and 
KH> C++ solely now

??? Think C is just a port of Object Pascal to C. As Object Pascal has been
around for ever and ever (the Lisa had a prequel called Clascal, and O-Pascal
was a Nickie Wirth rewrite for Apple), I would call it pretty standard (at least
on a Mac!). 

KH> In summary, I am all for anything that will allow me to develop 
KH> quality software in the most efficient manner. But no matter 
KH> what new method comes around there is no substitute for well-documented,

KH> well-structured, readable, reuseable code. If the method distracts 
KH> from this then there is less of a chance of me adopting it in 
KH> my work.

Readable, yes. Well-documented, yes. Well-structured? If you are using an OOP-language,
use OOA/D. Structured design and OOP do not fit well together. If you use one,
the other tends to, well, stink.


A good book on the subject is Object-Oriented Analysis, by Coad and Yourdin.


Lawson



 

--  
Uucp: ...{gatech,ames,rutgers}!ncar!asuvax!stjhmc!300!15.88!Lawson.English
Internet: Lawson.English@p88.f15.n300.z1.fidonet.org