home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: access4.digex.net!not-for-mail
- From: ell@access4.digex.net (Ell)
- Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.lang.c++,comp.realtime,comp.dcom.telecom.tech,comp.arch.embedded
- Subject: Re: Can OO be successful in real-time embedded systems?
- Date: 12 Apr 1996 02:26:14 GMT
- Organization: The Universe
- Message-ID: <4kkf07$4ld@news4.digex.net>
- References: <316BF0C5.1FE1@condat.de> <dibaldDpnpBH.5Et@netcom.com> <RMARTIN.96Apr11114411@rcm.oma.com>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: access4.digex.net
- X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 950824BETA PL0]
-
- Robert C. Martin (rmartin@oma.com) wrote:
- : dibald@netcom.com (Dave Baldwin) writes:
- : This is not quite correct. The intention of OO is not to hide the
- : hardware from the programmer. The intention of OO is to provide tools
- : to the programmer whereby he can manipulate the hardware at varying
- : levels of abstraction. If he wants to twiddle the bits, he can
- : go right ahead and do so, even in OO. If he would rather deal at a
- : higher level of abstraction, he can use OO to create that level.
-
- : OO is a tool, not a religion, and not a philosophy.
-
- OO"T" is a tool, OO should NOT be a religion, but there IS a "philosophy"
- (or more accurately a philosophical viewpoint) beneath the most efficient
- and "intuitive" OO, in my opinion. I have spoken to this philosophy on
- the Usenet since 1990 (comp.object, and comp.lang.c++), Booch does so in
- the early chapters of OOA&D, and Whitmire has done so recently here in
- comp.object.
-
- Elliott
-