Post #61,135
11/5/02 8:42:36 AM
|
My head hurts
Let's try this one last time:
You argue that OO failed to make code change-friendly.
You then argue OO gurus brought out refactoring to cover up that failure.
How could that possibly be since refactoring is about changing code? Wouldn't refactoring OO code be impossible if OO was not change-friendly?
Regards, John Urberg
|
Post #61,144
11/5/02 9:52:42 AM
|
That's normal when you talk to Tablizer. Get used to it.
--
We have only 2 things to worry about: That things will never get back to normal, and that they already have.
|
Post #61,228
11/5/02 5:07:00 PM
|
ROFL! Thanks, Doc.
Alex
"I have a truly marvelous demonstration of this proposition which this margin is too narrow to contain. -- Pierre de Fermat (1601-1665)
|
Post #61,555
11/7/02 1:32:15 AM
|
Misunderstanding "change friendly"
Okay okay, now I see the problem I think.
There is a big misunderstanding WRT "change friendly".
I meant how the code as a whole weathers changes, not each individual peice of code. Change-friendly design is a design that requires the fewest code changes upon a given application requirements change.
It is *not* the *ability* of the code to morph, but the NEED to undergo change or morphing in the first place. It would be roughly analogous to a plumbing design that avoids the need to bend pipes, and NOT the maluability (bendability) of the pipes themselves.
Is that clear now? This kind of reminds me of when John Lennon said, "The Beatles are bigger than Jesus Christ now" in the 60's (IIRC radio story). Religious groups went crazy and held mass record burnings. What they did not understand is that John was comparing their *popularity* to Jesus, and not their value as beings. Some preists came forward and even agreed with John, saying that "young people don't pay enough attention to religion and too much to pop stars" (paraphrased). John tried to explain the comment to the press, but it didn't seem to come out right.
________________ oop.ismad.com
|
Post #61,573
11/7/02 8:24:09 AM
|
Where's the "tablizer dictionary"?
You need one with all the terms you make up.
Regards, John Urberg
|
Post #61,576
11/7/02 8:49:04 AM
|
oopsismad.com, it makes good reading and helps
understanding some points that Bryce makes. thanx, bill oops is tops
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]
"Money for jobs? No first you get the job, then you get the money" Raimondo
|
Post #61,685
11/7/02 2:41:09 PM
|
re: Where's the "tablizer dictionary"?
I thought it was self-explanatory, but I was wrong. It seems there are multiple valid (or semi-valid) interpretations that I failed to anticipate. I am sorry. I will avoid its usage for now on.
How about "maintenance friendly" instead?
________________ oop.ismad.com
|
Post #61,800
11/8/02 2:40:56 AM
|
But then... Easy re-factoring IS "maintenance-friendly"!
A lot more "maintenance-friendly" than DIFFICULT re-factoring, anyway...
|
Post #61,942
11/8/02 10:05:05 PM
|
Are you saying OOP is easier to refactor?
________________ oop.ismad.com
|
Post #62,037
11/10/02 10:20:00 AM
|
The real Tablizer dictionary
Change friendly = p/r code Maintenance friendly = p/r code
OO code != p/r code therefore OO is by definition not change friendly or mainentance friendly
Refactoring = something OO gurus made up/stole to hide the fact that OO is not change and maintenance friendly
|
Post #62,043
11/10/02 10:55:15 AM
|
OMFG! ROFLMAO! LOL2!
[link|mailto:curley95@attbi.com|greg] - Grand-Master Artist in IT [link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry/|REMEMBER ED CURRY!!!]
Your friendly Homeland Security Officer reminds: Hold Thumbprint to Screen for 5 seconds, we'll take the imprint, or Just continue to type on your keyboard, and we'll just sample your DNA.
|
Post #61,770
11/7/02 10:42:18 PM
|
You're referring to the design of the code.
IOW, I understand your qualification to mean a well though out design will tend to only need changes to it's meta-data than in the actual code.
Wade.
"Ah. One of the difficult questions."
|
Post #61,793
11/8/02 1:01:50 AM
11/8/02 1:06:34 AM
|
re: You're referring to the design of the code.
IOW, I understand your qualification to mean a well though out design will tend to only need changes to it's meta-data than in the actual code
Well, that is certainly part of it. But it also has to do with how much code rework is needed per change. For example, in program A, a given requirements change may result in splitting 2 classes and moving 2 methods to another class; but in program B, the same change may only result in altering 2 classes in place. The second one would probably get a higher "change-friendly" score. (There are finer granularity counting techniques, I would note.)
It is based on the total effort of rework you could say, regardless of whether it is code or tables that have to be altered. (Note that meta-data alteration may require a less skilled person, and thus less money expended by the company.)
________________ oop.ismad.com
Edited by tablizer
Nov. 8, 2002, 01:06:34 AM EST
|