anton@bkj386.uucp (Anton Aylward) (08/22/90)
Can anyone advise me on sources for design, **** NOT CODING *****
using the facilities provided by C++.
I've heard there are some bad books out there, one review dammed a
4-function calculator example for being bloated, especially when
compared to the one in Stroustrup's book.
The examples in the books I have bought (Sighh) and the magazines
don't inpire me. What I see I keep thinking would be
just as easy to do in C or even (no. no, don't say it - he's going
to say it .... ) PASCAL, and probably simpler, cleaner and not require
the amount of information in the form of header files to be fed back
into the application that uses the module.
[I thought C++ was about information hiding, not _increasing_ the
visibility and surface area.]
I've been programming in C for over 12 years.
Most of what I have without C++ is pretty condensed.
I work on the K&R principle of parsimony.
What I've read on the philosopy of C++ apeals to my sense of good design,
simplicity, regularity..... What I've seen as implmenetion gives me a
bad taste.
Now is this just that the editors are comment on the part of us that survies
death (what 's he say? - oh! "Ah Souls") or is C++ really a cripple
when it comes to simple, concise and elegant expression of a solution.
Example of simple & concise:
#include <stdio.h>
main()
{
printf("Hello World\n");
}
Counter example: do the same program under microsoft windows.
For those who think I'm being argumentative, please back off.
I have confidence in people like Stroustrup and believe that he knows
more about language design than I'll ever do.
I'm not criticising C++, I'm _ASKING_ how I can get the best from it.
This is not a question about coding, its a question about how to
design for C++.
I appreciate that this question is to broad in scope to recieve answers
of any detail by followups or mail, but could someone please give me
some references that put C++ in a good light?
Thank you for listening to my problems.
Thank you in advance for your assistance.
/anton aylwardmjv@objects.mv.com (Michael J. Vilot) (08/24/90)
Anton Aylward asks:
> Can anyone advise me on sources for design
This is an important question, because the short answer is: No. I haven't
seen anything written that provides a clear presentation of an approach to
design and programming that is appropriate for C++.
The two that come closest are ``What is Object-Oriented Prgramming?'' by
Bjarne Stroustrup, IEEE Software, May 1988, and the book ``Object-Oriented
Design with Examples in C++'' by Mark Mullin, Addison-Wesley 1989.
The former just begins to address design concerns, and the latter is really
just a warming-over of Smalltalk (some of the code examples will not even
compile).
``Object-Oriented Design with Applications'' by Grady Booch, Benjamin-
Cummings 1990, provides a lot of information about an OOD approach, without
addressing a lot of language details.
I'm looking forward to next month's C++ at Work conference, because several
of the presentations promise to discuss design issues and C++.
EventualIy, think that we will develop an approach to design that is
uniquely suited to C++. It's still evolving (as is the language), which is
why there isn't much in print.
The C++ Report and C++ Journal are possibly the first places you'll see
such presentations.
--
Mike Vilot, ObjectWare Inc, Nashua NH
mjv@objects.mv.com (UUCP: ...!decvax!zinn!objects!mjv)johnson@m.cs.uiuc.edu (08/24/90)
>EventualIy, I think that we will develop an approach to design that is >uniquely suited to C++. It's still evolving (as is the language), which is >why there isn't much in print. If true, this would be very bad. Design is supposed to be different from implementation, so it would be odd if every language required a unique design approach. In fact, I don't think it is true. At the high-level design stage, C++ can be treated like any other object-oriented programming language. There are particular problems like memory management, but I consider these implementation problems instead of design problems, though that is probably a bit artificial. Booch's book is good. I also recommend "Designing Object-Oriented Software" by Rebecca Wirfs-Broch, Brian Wilkerson, and Lauren Wiener, from Prentice Hall. ISBN 0-13-629825-7. It teaches the CRC design method. The two books are very different. The second one is much more practical, with checklists and large examples. It is written by a bunch of practicioners who got shanghaied into teaching and had to figure out how to explain what they did. Booch is an expert in software engineering, who approaches things from a more theoretical point of view than WWW, but who does not spend most of his time building applications. I think both books are valuable. Ralph Johnson - University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (08/24/90)
In article <882@zinn.MV.COM> mjv@objects.mv.com (Michael J. Vilot) writes: >Anton Aylward asks: >> Can anyone advise me on sources for design > >``Object-Oriented Design with Applications'' by Grady Booch, Benjamin- >Cummings 1990, provides a lot of information about an OOD approach, without >addressing a lot of language details. > I think this is about the best, it presents an approach to OOD that can be adapted to the needs of almost any OOP language. It is quite good, and shows very little bias toward any particular language. The book 'with examples in C++' is *far* too caught up in a Smalltalk style of OOD to be really useful for good C++ programming. --------------------------------- uunet!tdatirv!sarima (aka Stanley Friesen)
dch@aeg.dsto.oz.au (Dave Hanslip) (08/28/90)
sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) writes: >In article <882@zinn.MV.COM> mjv@objects.mv.com (Michael J. Vilot) writes: > The book 'with examples in C++' is *far* too caught up in a >Smalltalk style of OOD to be really useful for good C++ programming. I assume this refers to "Object-Oriented Program Design with Examples in C++" by Mark Mullin. I've seen this opinion expressed before. Perhaps you could explain why. David C. Hanslip E-mail: dch@aeg.dsto.oz.au Aeronautical Research Laboratory Phone: +61 8 259 5792 DSTO Salisbury, South Australia Fax: +61 8 259 5507
sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (08/28/90)
In article <1197@fang.dsto.oz> dch@aeg.dsto.oz.au (Dave Hanslip) writes: >sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) writes: >I assume this refers to "Object-Oriented Program Design with Examples in C++" >by Mark Mullin. I've seen this opinion expressed before. Perhaps you could >explain why. Yes, that's the one I meant. There are a number of things that bother me about his approach to C++ programming. I find that he goes out of his way to create class hierarchies that neutralize or bypass C++'s type checking capability. And he seems to think this is a *good* thing. In Smalltalk this is appropriate, since that language operates on a purely polymorphic, essentially typeless model. In C++ it is like driving without a seat belt. The most obvious example of this in Mullin's book is his insistance that all container classes be fully polymorphic. He does this even when the design clearly limits the type of object that can legitimately be placed in the container. This eliminates one source of correctness checking that the C++ compiler would otherwise be doing for you. In C++ it is foolish not to let the compiler help in this way. Thus a container class for widgets should only accept widgets, and a containr class for doodads should only take doodas. There is no reason to force a doodad container to accept widgets.
steve@Pkg.Mcc.COM (Steve Madere) (08/29/90)
We're overlooking a very important and useful source of program design advice here. Computer Language Magazine. Simply put, it is the best, up to date, source of design advice I have ever seen. I believe that the June or July issue has an article specifically on object oriented design. ie. How to get into an OO frame of mind. Steve Madere
larryo@well.sf.ca.us (Larry O'Brien) (09/02/90)
steve@Pkg.Mcc.COM (Steve Madere) writes: >We're overlooking a very important and useful source of program design >advice here. >Computer Language Magazine. >Simply put, it is the best, up to date, source of design advice >I have ever seen. >I believe that the June or July issue has an article specifically on >object oriented design. ie. How to get into an OO frame of mind. >Steve Madere Steve, Thanks, the check's in the mail. Seriously, COMPUTER LANGUAGE has for the last 18 months been repositioning itself as a magazine about "the other 80% of your time" (not spent writing new code, but on analysis, design, integration, and all that ugly stuff about programming in "the real world.") We've printed and are continuing to print as many articles on analysis and design as we can. Our October issue features Meilir Page-Jones, Larry Constantine, and Steve Weiss' new "Uniform Object Notation." And our 4th annual January Analysis & Design is going to have an even more all-star lineup than we did last January when we had Constantine, Yourdon, and Plauger all in the same issue. On the other hand, we're committed to publishing articles from the front-line; we aren't an academic journal. We're looking for articles from the real world on issues such as analysis, design, programming team strategies, designing for maintainability, integration techniques, quality assurance, tech support strategies, marketing experience, mixed language programming, re-engineering, and just about anything else you can think of that isn't Yet Another "Programming TSRs" Article. Larry O'Brien Editor, COMPUTER LANGUAGE
mjv@objects.mv.com (Michael J. Vilot) (09/03/90)
I said: > Eventually, I think that we will develop an approach to design that is > uniquely suited to C++. Ralph Johnson replied: > If true, this would be very bad. Design is supposed to be different > from implementation, so it would be odd if every language required a > unique design approach. I think this is an interesting discussion, and I certainly don't claim to have any final answers. I've observed that the design approach influences the way we use a language, and the facilities of the language in turn affect how we formulate designs. I don't think it's the case that the language ``requires'' a certain approach, it just seems to evolve one. Over time, different language cultures evolve idioms and conventions that seem to work well enough that they become widely used. It's certainly possible to come up with a very abstract, language-independent design. Would it make the most effective use of the language at hand? I think not -- this seems to be the same portability/efficiency trade we encounter at the coding level. On the other hand, this implies that the same sort of Pareto analysis holds: the majority of the design could be language-independent. > Booch's book is good. I think the book is a landmark work, because it is the first one to illustrate the object-oriented design approach in a way that transcends the features of any one language. However, I see that although it's possible to use OOD to design into different languages, I do not see that the _same_ design is expressed the _same_ way for every language. Some research (and a controlled experiment or two) would help provide some substance to the discussion. Perhaps having a method like Grady's OOD will short-circuit the usual formation of informal idioms that we've normally used as ``design method.'' It will be interesting to see if his approach catches on. -- Mike Vilot, ObjectWare Inc, Nashua NH mjv@objects.mv.com (UUCP: ...!decvax!zinn!objects!mjv)