January 27th, 2016, 11:51 am
QuoteOriginally posted by: Traden4AlphaQuoteOriginally posted by: CuchulainnQuoteOriginally posted by: Traden4AlphaQuoteOriginally posted by: CuchulainnQuoteOriginally posted by: Traden4AlphaQuoteOriginally posted by: CuchulainnThis is the wayTechnically it's two ways although perhaps someone will sneak in a third way. ;)I don't see this happening anymore; we are in the era of commodity software and outsourcing. It is not in their interest to structure/decompose systems into loosely coupled system, too little/few maintenance and bug fixes is detrimental (see my ERP analogy).Ergo.For every solution they will find a problem.Hmmm... To me, it looks more like the decomposed system approach has won. Everything is plug-n-play: a hundred thousand different apps tap into dozens of decoupled OS system services which communicate with thousands of types of peripherals that use dozens of standardized interfaces (USB, ethernet, WiFi, Bluetooth, SATA, PCI, etc.).It may be in the vendor's interest to create lock-in (e.g., the olden days of IBM when hardware, software, & peripherals all came from one source), but that kind of integration can't keep pace with all the innovations progressing in all the different streams of technology development.I don't agree. it only looks that way. The process is much more ad-hic and idiosyncratic.We also need to distinguish between market-driven products (which you see in consumer products0 and let's say large government products.You are absolute right about ad-hoc & idiosyncratic. Whether it's the ad-hoc version of OOP or the ad-hoc version of structured probably depends on when & where the lead architect went to school. And any attempt to do either OOP or structured the "right way" tends to go out the window when delays & overruns hit the project.There's also the the issue (with ERP especially) that tight coupling in software sometimes reflects the nature of the problem more so than the design choices in the solution. If the physical system has tight coupling between parts, the software probably will too. (It's a separate issue whether organizations and other physical systems should be designed top-down or with OOP.)I agree.,ERP (discrete manufacturing paradigm) tends not to work with 'analog'/process application.And CS has a very bad memory. Ask them who Dijkstra was and they tell you goalkeeper for FC Groningen.. CS is not a science.
Last edited by
Cuchulainn on January 26th, 2016, 11:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.