home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
- Path: sparky!uunet!mole-end!mat
- From: mat@mole-end.matawan.nj.us
- Subject: Re: Is C++ "for the rest of us" ?
- Message-ID: <1992Aug20.094653.29755@mole-end.matawan.nj.us>
- Organization: :
- References: <1355EN@netmbx.netmbx.de> <rmartin.714275698@thor>
- Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 09:46:53 GMT
- Lines: 33
-
- In article <rmartin.714275698@thor>, rmartin@thor.Rational.COM (Bob Martin) writes:
- > jrobie@netmbx.netmbx.de (Jonathan Robie) writes:
-
- > |What guidelines would you give to a manager who is trying
- > |to decide whether to use C++ for an new project? ///
-
- > ...
- > Train the engineers in OOD and C++. Training in OOD is essential, C
- > programmers who learn C++ are likely to keep using C-isms and not
- > likely to practice any OO.
-
- I'll second that, and for a different reason.
-
- Y'see, if you want to avoid the C'ism, what you need is training in
- OO Programming.
-
- But if you want to get the job done on time and with a minimum of
- hassle, and get the bennies of OO, then you need OO Design. And
- to make the OO Design sound, you need OO Analysis.
-
- Oh, and you need a clear notion of `Detailing'--my term, by analogy with
- the structural and miscelaneous steel industries, for what is commonly
- lumped under `Detailed Design'--except that nobody has a definition,
- except maybe me. Look for some of my old posts, here and on comp.object.
- (I don't mean that nobody _does_ it; I mean that nobody can _explain_ it.)
-
- Anyhow, I suggest you study a bunch of OO methods, and also study E/R
- modelling, and then follow none of them exactly!
- --
- (This man's opinions are his own.)
- From mole-end Mark Terribile
-
- mat@mole-end.matawan.nj.us, Somewhere in Matawan, NJ
-