in reply to Re-Factoring: Philosophy and Approach

I think you're showing another example of a problem we're all fighting with now and then.

It is all to easy to start coding without having a design.

Especially when there is some 'project manager' running behind your back, constantly asking for something 'he can show'. I.e. some kind of prototype.

Most(?) people tend to share my experience from learning OOP (Object Oriented Programming). What I learnt was that OOP has little importance compared to OOD (Object Oriented Design).

Once OOD is more or less mastered and (most importantly) used, the developer often comes to the conclusion that "when using OOD, OOP becomes nothing more than a question of syntax".

f--k the world!!!!
/dev/world has reached maximal mount count, check forced.

  • Comment on Re: Re-Factoring: Philosophy and Approach

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Re-Factoring: Philosophy and Approach
by George_Sherston (Vicar) on Nov 04, 2001 at 05:51 UTC
    This really chimes in with what I was reading today in Code Complete - that the difference between OO and functional programming is not in what you actually produce in the end, but in how you conceptualise it to start with. I might write a programme with fifty functions and you might write a programme with seven objects and they'd basically be the same thing because your seven objects have seven functions each, and my fifty functions logically group themselves in seven groups. They're just different ways of looking at the thing. But of course there's no "just" about it. One might as well say a radio telescope and an optical telescope were "just" different ways of looking at a star, or taste and smell were "just" different ways of experiencing food. One or the other is good; but both together give one a more rounded picture.

    Hmm, this has been a most philosophically stimulating weekend so far :)

    § George Sherston
[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom