12 Feb
2011
12 Feb
'11
6:35 p.m.
On 12 Feb 2011 at 19:58, Charlie Carothers wrote:
Something along those lines has actually occurred to
me too. I keep
thinking there should be *something* that could be done to
revolutionize the way software is created. I'm pretty convinced the
way it's currently done is not the answer. Though I still really
enjoy writing C code, and though I'm careful to try to create easily
understandable and maintainable code, I always seem to finish projects
with the uneasy feeling that it could have been done better, maybe a
lot better. BTW, I reject the idea that OO is the answer. I think
when I was younger I didn't feel that way; I was just happy that the
blooming thing worked! Maybe there's a penalty for spending too many
years doing too many projects - you start to get all philosophical
about the process... Later, Charlie C.
Ah, the silver bullet problem. People claiming to have The Answer
have been around almost as long as electronic computing.
Anyone remember the "Pride Method"? I think (google doesn't turn it
up) a fellow by the name of Robert(?) Pride, who back in the 60's or
early 70's ran workshops on creating (mostly business) programs that
worked. His Method was fairly straightforward--start from results
(reports, screens, whatever) and inputs (data, user prompts) and work
backwards, coding backwards from these endpoints. Basic top-down
design stuff.
It was revolutionary back then, but probably wouldn't make a ripple
now.
OO may be *an* answer, but it's discipline and clear thinking that
will get you where you're going. Where things start to get ugly is
when "enhancements" are added to existing code. Pride insisted that
it was necessary to start the design process all over again when
enhancements that changed the fundamental nature of the prograom.
That's exactly what budget-conscious development managers didn't want
to hear, but it did make sense.
Cheers,
Chuck