Re: What databases have taught me

Robert Martin wrote:
> On 2006-06-23 08:47:21 -0700, queisser <andrew.queisser_at_hp.com> said:
>
> > I think a distinction between macro and micro-OO needs to be made. At a
> > macro level OO may be as good or bad as any other method of structuring
> > code. At a micro level OO works extremely well. Somewhere in the middle
> > there's a crossover point and it's not always clear where that point
> > is. Things like "devices" or "windows" or "customers" can be
> > reasonable classes in a hierarchy but at the top level things are not
> > as clear.
>
> OO is a tool to help decouple modules. It's not a tool for large scale
> organization. You can think of OO as the girders of a building,
> providing the small-scale structural material. The building itself
> doesn't look like a girder.

Every OOP proponent has a different characteristic of what OOP is and what it does best. I *have* heard claims that OOP is "better at building large-scale software". (Although, I think one-big-exe is a design smell, but that's another debate.)

As far as decoupling, I've yet to see examples from my domain that don't make suspect assumptions about change patterns/frequencies. (I cannot really evaluate the change pattern frequencies from domains I am not familiar with, but usually spot potential tradeoff decision paths that don't seem to be documented and compared well.)

> --
> Robert C. Martin (Uncle Bob) | email: unclebob_at_objectmentor.com

-T- Received on Thu Jun 29 2006 - 04:58:01 CEST