Posted by lawrence k on 11/18/07 20:09

On Nov 16, 3:50 pm, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> 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.


Sorry. I'm using Google Groups to read this thread, and the design of
their pages leaves the context fairly clear. One only has to look up
the page slightly to see your whole post.

[Back to original message]