home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!utcsri!skule.ecf!torn!nott!cunews!revcan!software.mitel.com!kim!kim
- From: kim@Software.Mitel.COM (Kim Letkeman)
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.pascal
- Subject: Re: Interesting design/implementation dilemma
- Message-ID: <KIM.92Nov19090406@kim.Software.Mitel.COM>
- Date: 19 Nov 92 14:04:06 GMT
- References: <722091628.F00001@contrast.wlink.nl>
- Sender: kim@Software.Mitel.COM
- Organization: MITEL Public Switching, Kanata, Ontario, Canada
- Lines: 27
- In-reply-to: berend@contrast.wlink.nl's message of 18 Nov 92 13:17:46 GMT
-
- In article <722091628.F00001@contrast.wlink.nl> berend@contrast.wlink.nl (Berend de Boer) writes:
-
- | So I had to choose design 2, deleting the reference to the Job unit
- | from the Printer unit. (I could choose design 1 but than I had to
- | write code especially to circumvent the circular reference error). My
- | question is: how far does a particular language (Turbo Pascal in this
- | case) influence design?
-
- The language and development environment have a huge influence on the
- detailed design and implementation.
-
- As for your dilemma, well, you may never have thought to ask the
- question if you had originally decided on one printer unit with
- methods like "PrintFile" and "PrintBuffer" rather than creating a
- separate "job" object.
-
- | In this case implementation and design could not be seperated but
- | had to be considered in parallel. I suppose this is very common. For
- | example, one cannot choose a design using multiple inheritance if
- | your language does not support it.
-
- In my opinion, there isn't really any difference between (detailed)
- design and implementation. You can only use the tools you are given.
- Designs must change as more data (gathered through solving
- implementation problems) becomes available.
- --
- Kim Letkeman kim@Software.Mitel.COM
-