Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.lang.smalltalk
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!pipex!uunet!rcm!rmartin
From: rmartin@rcmcon.com (Robert Martin)
Subject: Re: Teaching OO
References: <D2150022.k0e90w@ed.bse.com> <1995Jan17.174104.4480@rcmcon.com> <3fma1g$2ne@jabba.ess.harris.com>
Organization: R. C. M. Consulting Inc. 708-918-1004
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 1995 14:14:54 GMT
Message-ID: <1995Jan20.141454.3790@rcmcon.com>
Lines: 23
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.object:25357 comp.lang.smalltalk:19725

wdavis@dw3f.ess.harris.com (Bill Davis) writes:
>I see no reason why a model must have any management of dependencies
>to be an OO model.  I see no reason why a model must be reusable or
>easily maintained to be OO.  These sound like quality judgements.
>Are you saying that any model which is not up to your quality standards
>is not an OO model?  Even a bad model can be OO.  We may not think
>it is desirable, but it can be OO.

It sounds like your definition of OO is: "Any modeling technique that
somehow centers around objects."

I disagree.

My definition of OO is: "A modeling technique in which engineers use
abstract polymorphic interfaces to manage the dependencies between
software modules, such that those modules can be maintained in
isolation, and possibly reused in other applications."

-- 
Robert Martin       | Design Consulting   | Training courses offered:
Object Mentor Assoc.| rmartin@rcmcon.com  |   Object Oriented Analysis
2080 Cranbrook Rd.  | Tel: (708) 918-1004 |   Object Oriented Design
Green Oaks IL 60048 | Fax: (708) 918-1023 |   C++
