Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.ai
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!cam-news-feed3.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.idt.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!141.199.15.9!inmet!houdini!stt
From: stt@houdini.camb.inmet.com (Tucker Taft)
Subject: Re: Interesting but sensitive topic to discuss (HELP: - OOP and CASE tools)
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: houdini.camb.inmet.com
Message-ID: <E23q6J.MHw.0.-s@inmet.camb.inmet.com>
Followup-To: comp.object,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.ai
Sender: news@inmet.camb.inmet.com (USENET news)
Organization: Intermetrics, Inc.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
References: <rmartin-0312960821100001@vh1-001.wwa.com>
Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 15:39:55 GMT
Lines: 19
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.object:58412 comp.lang.c++:232311 comp.lang.ada:54774 comp.lang.smalltalk:47590 comp.ai:42672

Robert C. Martin (rmartin@oma.com) wrote:

: ...There is no reason why primitives cannot
: be created when using switch statements.  

I certainly agree.  What I was trying to convey was the "typical"
behavior, not the "possible" behavior.  Empirically, you take the
same programmers, expose them to the same problem, and my anecdotal
evidence indicates that they tend to create more switch statements than
would be necessary if they focused on creating the right "primitives,"
resulting in even more information "spreading" and de-modularization.

: Robert C. Martin    | Design Consulting   | Training courses offered:
: Object Mentor       | rmartin@oma.com     |   Object Oriented Design
: 14619 N Somerset Cr | Tel: (847) 918-1004 |   C++
: Green Oaks IL 60048 | Fax: (847) 918-1023 | http://www.oma.com  

-Tucker Taft   stt@inmet.com   http://www.inmet.com/~stt/
Intermetrics, Inc.  Cambridge, MA  USA
