Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.c++
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!cornellcs!newsstand.cit.cornell.edu!portc01.blue.aol.com!news-res.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!news-peer.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!news.mathworks.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!utcsri!info.ecf!doylep
From: doylep@ecf.toronto.edu (Patrick Doyle)
Subject: Re: Another Way Of Thinking About Patterns
Sender: news@ecf.toronto.edu (News Administrator)
Message-ID: <DxH4Cs.76L@ecf.toronto.edu>
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 16:26:52 GMT
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: spark4.ecf
References: <511arv$fi2@news4.digex.net>
Organization: University of Toronto, Engineering Computing Facility
Lines: 17
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.object:55386 comp.lang.smalltalk:43240 comp.lang.c++:211737

In article <511arv$fi2@news4.digex.net>, Ell <ell@access5.digex.net> wrote:
>Patrick Doyle (doylep@ecf.toronto.edu) wrote:
>
>: Good point.  In the bridge analogy, we're not the passenger driving over
>: the bridge; we're the engineers building it.
>
>But even the engineers nned to keep in mind how the bridge is to be used -
>all cars, trucks and cars, drawbridge - and where the brdge originates
>from and where it is going.  These all determine what kind of design
>should be formulated.

  Ok, before we get too lost in the analogy, what's the question we're
trying to answer?  Is it: Can the methodology be separated from the problem
domain?

 -PD

