|
|
Posted by lawrence k on 11/16/07 19:19
On Nov 8, 11:14 pm, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> lawrence k wrote:
> > The style one adopts should be well suited to the kinds of clients one
> > acquires. I've mostly been working with start-ups where the projects
> > start, stop, re-focus, lurch forward in a panic, are canceled, then
> > revived, then re-purposed, then declared "ready to launch" about two
> > months before I think they are ready to launch. Personally, I never
> > get the time to debug any masking code I might write. Buggy code
> > hidden under a mask is worse than plain code. The mask simply makes
> > debugging harder.
>
> Clients don't care about style. They care about results. And proper
> design resolves most of these problems, and minimizes the effects of the
> others.
>
> Sure, sometimes you have to rewrite code. But a proper OO design limits
> the effects of any changes.
>
> And debugging is easier because you can debug and run regression tests
> at the class level. Once that's working according to the design, it
> won't be a problem in the code.
>
> > If you work on projects that are well-planned and have budgets that
> > match the ambition of the project, then I'd say it is best to build
> > the code up in layers, with each layer resting on the layer below, and
> > each layer well tested before the next higher level is built. And OOP
> > is certainly the preferred way to do for such projects.
>
> None of the projects I've been on are like that.
In which case, we are not actually in disagreement, are we?
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|