Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!husc6!bbn!rochester!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cwjcc!hal!nic.MR.NET!tank!mimsy!eneevax!haven!purdue!decwrl!hplabs!hpda!hpcuhb!hpsmtc1!mwatkins
From: mwatkins@hpsmtc1.HP.COM (Marvin L. Watkins)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: Software Maintenance
Message-ID: <16090007@hpsmtc1.HP.COM>
Date: 2 Nov 88 03:34:45 GMT
References: <6338@pucc.Princeton.EDU>
Organization: Hewlett Packard, Cupertino
Lines: 29

> lishka@uwslh.UUCP (Fish-Guts) (aka Christopher Lishka)
> ...     , my question
>is whether software maintenance with an object-oriented interface is
>easier than software maintenance with a function-oriented interface?
>IMHO, I would assume that it is, ...
----------
No data points on OO maintenance, BUT ...
(... something about you get what you pay for and notes is free ...)

During new product design phases, if a feature or requirement
doesn't "fit" into the evolving design, engineers are generally
*expected* to redesign the structure to create a simple, clean architecture.

During released product design (aka maintenance), if a new requirement
doesn't "fit" into the existing design, engineers are generally
*forbidden* to redesign the structure.
(Has everybody here heard the anecdote about the comment
"They made me do it!" in an ugly patch?)

Presumably, restructuring during early design is good
but during late design is bad.
Leaving aside all the fun comments one could make here,
I paraphrase lishka's question as,

	"Which design method produces programs that can have
	new features introduced without major modification to their
	existing structure?"

My guess? OOD.