Hermann Kaindl
ABSTRACT
One of the claimed advantages of object-oriented (OO) development is that developers can use objects in a uniform modeling approach throughout the process. In particular, they can coherently apply the same notation for representing these objects and their relations in both analysis and design. Given this, the claims by many OO methodologists (see, e.g., [1, 5]) that the transition from OO analysis (OOA) to OO design (OOD) is easy and smooth may seem convincing. However, the contrasting view can be found in [2, 4] that it is actually difficult to go from OOA to OOD and, recognizing the differences between what is modeled in the analysis and design phases can lead to a more conscious development approach.
In the light of such controversial views, it seems to be necessary to widely discuss this issue. The prospective panelists represent a wide spectrum of related views. So, there is some hope that this panel might more or less resolve this important issue.
A consequence of resolving this issue might be a contribution to a better understanding of a paradox in the current software business: software is wanted faster and at the same time with higher quality than ever before. Does the view that the transition from OOA to OOD might be easy promise too much in the direction of quick solutions?
- 1.B. Henderson-Sellers and J. M. Edwards. The object-oriented systems life cycle. Communications of the ACM, 33(9):142-159, September 1990. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- 2.G. M. H~ydalsvik and G. Sindre. On the purpose of object-oriented analysis. In Proceedings of the Conference on Object-Oriented Systems, Languages and Applications (OOPSLA'93), pages 240-255, Washington, D.C., September 1993. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 3.I. Jacobson. A confused world of OOA and OOD. Journal of Object-Oriented Programming, 8(5):15-20, September 1995.Google Scholar
- 4.H. Kaindl. Difficulties in the transition from OO analysis to design. IEEE Software, pages 94-102, Sept./Oct. 1999. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 5.J. Rumbaugh, M. Blaha, W. Premerlani, F. Eddy, and W. Lorensen. Object-Oriented Modeling and Design. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1991. Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- How difficult is the transition from OOA to OOD? (panel session)
Recommendations
Panel: Future Directions of Block-based Programming
SIGCSE '16: Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science EducationBlocks-based programming is becoming the way that learners are being introduced to programming and computer science. Led by the popularity of tools like Scratch, Alice, and Code.org's Hour of Code activities, many new programming environments and ...
Engineering for usability (panel session): lessons from the user derived interface
The focus here is on the lessons learned from the UDI project for building usability into the software development process. In the UDI project we attempted to engineer a usable system. That process involved:
- defining an appropriate metric for measuring ...
UML (panel): the language of blueprints for software?
OOPSLA '97: Proceedings of the 12th ACM SIGPLAN conference on Object-oriented programming, systems, languages, and applicationsThe Unified Method was launched by Grady Booch and Jim Rumbaugh at an OOPSLA'95 Conference Fringe meeting organised by Rational Software Corporation. In 1996 the Unified Method was re-scoped to a notation, and renamed the Unified Modeling Language (UML)...
Comments