Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!bloom-beacon!eru!luth!sunic!tut!tukki!sakkinen
From: sakkinen@tukki.jyu.fi (Markku Sakkinen)
Newsgroups: comp.object
Subject: Re: I need arguments for OO...
Message-ID: <2954@tukki.jyu.fi>
Date: 7 Feb 90 07:29:39 GMT
References: <1129@swbatl.UUCP> <406@oasis.mrcu>
Reply-To: sakkinen@jytko.jyu.fi (Markku Sakkinen)
Organization: University of Jyvaskyla, Finland
Lines: 34

In article <406@oasis.mrcu> paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson) writes:
>> ...
> ...
>Something not to mention but to bear in mind is that NONE of the
>structured design methods (and tools based on them) will produce OO
>designs.  They will simply cause you to write structured programs in
>OO languages.  Ignore any blurb that says a method is
>"object-oriented": it is not (btw I have been looking at this for my
>company, so I know). [...]

Two cases in point:

There is a rather new book (1988?) by Shlaer and Mellor, entitled
"Object-oriented design: modeling the world in data" (may be inexact).
What it maily teaches is how to make entity-relationship schemata
and then normalised relational DB schemata out of them. So much for
object orientation.

A person from Yourdon spoke at a national conference in our town
last spring, on "Yourdon structured method and object oriented methods".
While the talk was interesting, he certainly had some peculiar ideas
about object orientation.

However, there are also more truly OO design methods being marketed today.
At least Ivar Jacobson's ObjectOry (TM), on which he gave a tutorial
at the ECOOP last summer.

Markku Sakkinen
Department of Computer Science
University of Jyvaskyla (a's with umlauts)
Seminaarinkatu 15
SF-40100 Jyvaskyla (umlauts again)
Finland
          SAKKINEN@FINJYU.bitnet (alternative net address)