Posted by Jerry Stuckle on 11/16/07 20:50

lawrence k wrote:
> 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?
>
>
>

No, we aren't. And you shouldn't quote out of context.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

[Back to original message]