TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:Re: Object Oriented? From:"Steven J. Owens" <puff -at- NETCOM -dot- COM> Date:Tue, 5 Mar 1996 18:40:31 -0800
> [...much discussion on pros & cons of object oriented programming...]
Much of the foregoing has been quite accurate and interesting.
OO is neither the end-all, be-all some of its proponents claim nor is
it useless snake-oil. Ahem. In my humble opinion, of course.
Notwithstanding, the clearest statement I've seen of the concept
of OO is:
Systems are generally composed of processes and objects.
Traditional software analysis, design and implementation looks at
processes.
Processes tend to change more than objects do. Changes in
processes tend to have wider-reaching effects than changes in objects.
Tackling the problem from the perspective of objects is more
effective; more flexible, better able to respond to changes in the
system both in the analysis-design-implementation cycle and over the
lifeycle of the product.
