Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #10143

Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies

From	Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject	Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies
References	<Xns9FA29593FF4C2jpnasty@94.75.214.39> <p4_xq.30508$Pm3.8310@newsfe12.iad> <Xns9FA37B944799jpnasty@94.75.214.39>
Message-ID	<ctqyq.55865$rF5.28151@newsfe19.iad> (permalink)
Organization	Public Usenet Newsgroup Access
Date	2011-11-21 07:19 -0400

Show all headers | View raw

On 11-11-20 01:08 PM, Novice wrote:
> Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> wrote in
> news:p4_xq.30508$Pm3.8310@newsfe12.iad: 
> 
>> You could probably do worse than to read
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_development_methodology. This is
>> of value primarily because it introduces a lot of common terminology.
>>
>> Ultimately _every_ software development methodology (SDM) boils down
>> to: 
>>
>> 1. requirements analysis - understanding what the client needs you to
>> do; 2. analysis & design - how you intend to meet those needs. See
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-oriented_analysis_and_design,
>> since we are talking Java, for general concepts;
>> 3. implementation - actually write code;
>> 4. testing - ensuring that your code, as written, satisfies the
>> requirements;
>> 5. maintenance - nurturing the application over its lifespan.
>>
>> How all the various approaches differ is how they break up and
>> sequence these activities. What really matters is that all these
>> activities are important.
>>
>> It's probably best not to fixate on any given methodology. Just learn
>> up on the highlights of each, and keep in mind that all of them
>> ultimately boil down to requiring competence in the same skills. You'd
>> be interested initially in object-oriented analysis (OOA),
>> object-oriented design (OOD), and how to test your code (starting with
>> unit testing and perhaps functional testing).
>>
>> Like Arne suggested, "Effective Java" by Bloch is a great book. So is
>> "Code Complete". IMO I wouldn't bother buying a copy of the GOF design
>> patterns book; borrow from a university library or locate a decent
>> website instead. Read some Martin Fowler
>> (http://martinfowler.com/intro.html). Don't get hung up on specific
>> methodologies (did I say that already?) - no project ever succeeded or
>> failed just because of what methodology a team used. Get some
>> familiarity with UML but don't go overboard with it.
>>
>> My own specific suggestion - read
>> http://www.agilemodeling.com/artifacts/crcModel.htm (Scott Ambler is
>> also a good author). CRC is not just useful in agile.
>>
>> If your understanding of persistence (databases) is not solid - in
>> your estimation, bone up on that.
>>
>> If you don't have one already, select another OO programming language
>> to learn. You can make a lot more headway in learning all of the above
>> if you're not tied to one specific language. Just my opinion.
>>
> Thanks, Arved. Lots of great suggestions, tempered with common sense like 
> not getting fixated on any specific methodology. 
> 
> A couple of followup questions if I may. 
> 1. I'm pretty solid on relational databases, although not OO databases. 
> I'm not clear on the actual purpose of "persistence layers" though. I 
> started to look at Hibernate a few years back but got sidetracked and 
> didn't get very far. Can you possibly summarize in a few sentences:
> a. what a persistence layer does 
> b. how an OO database differs from a relational database?

What the others said. :-) Not a cop-out - they explained it well.

> I'm also intrigued to hear you suggest looking at another OO language as 
> a way to learn more about OO in general. Interesting idea. Like learning 
> French to help improve your Spanish, to use a non-computer metaphor.I did 
> dabble in C++ briefly after I had the basics of C but then discovered 
> that C++ was not easily portable across platforms. That's when I was sold 
> (brainwashed?) into looking at Java ;-)
> 
> What other OO language would be best to consider? C++? Smalltalk? .NET? 
> (Hmm, I'm not sure if .NET is even considered OO....)
> 
C# is a good language to learn, but I'm with Arne that it's too close to
Java to serve the purpose I suggested. I wouldn't recommend C++, even
C++11, for this purpose either, for different reasons - steep learning
curve, multi-paradigm so you might lose sight of the forest for the
trees etc etc.

OO in Ruby would be worth looking at, IMO. If you really wanted to open
your eyes you could look at prototype-based OO like Self or Javascript
[1], but I think Ruby would do just fine.

AHS

1. Look up the terms "prototype based OO" or "prototype based
programming". Languages like C# or Java are class-based OO, in contrast.
-- 
You should know the problem before you try to solve it.
Example: When my son was three he cried about a problem with his hand. I
kissed it several times and asked him about the problem. He peed on his
hand.
-- Radia Perlman, inventor of spanning tree protocol

Thread

Standard Design and Development Methodologies Novice <novice@example..com> - 2011-11-19 19:42 +0000
  Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-19 21:22 -0500
    Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies Novice <novice@example..com> - 2011-11-20 16:55 +0000
      Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies "Charles Hottel" <chottel@earthlink.net> - 2011-11-20 22:20 -0500
  Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-11-19 23:01 -0400
    Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-11-19 20:13 -0800
      Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-11-19 20:16 -0800
      Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies "Derek K. Wodenhouse" <dkw@none.of.your.biz> - 2011-11-19 23:49 -0500
        Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-11-19 23:45 -0800
          Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies "Derek K. Wodenhouse" <dkw@none.of.your.biz> - 2011-11-20 03:49 -0500
            Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2011-11-20 13:58 +0100
            Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-11-20 08:32 -0800
              Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies "Derek K. Wodenhouse" <dkw@none.of.your.biz> - 2011-11-20 18:24 -0500
        Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-11-20 03:27 -0800
          Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies spk <jhic@speak.invalid> - 2011-11-20 09:54 -0400
            Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-11-20 08:33 -0800
            Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies thoolen <th00len@th0lenbot.thorium> - 2011-11-20 18:30 -0500
      Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-11-20 09:35 -0400
      Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies Novice <novice@example..com> - 2011-11-20 17:18 +0000
        Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-11-20 10:30 -0800
          Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-11-21 07:23 -0400
      Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-25 21:51 -0500
        Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-11-25 20:07 -0800
    Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies Novice <novice@example..com> - 2011-11-20 17:08 +0000
      Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-20 12:18 -0500
      Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies markspace <-@.> - 2011-11-20 10:29 -0800
      Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-11-20 10:55 -0800
        Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-20 14:07 -0500
          Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-11-20 11:50 -0800
      Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-11-21 07:19 -0400
  Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2011-11-20 22:27 -0800
    Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-11-21 07:02 -0400
      Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2011-11-22 18:52 +0100
        Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies markspace <-@.> - 2011-11-22 11:37 -0800
          Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2011-11-22 14:27 -0800
            Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-25 22:06 -0500
              Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2011-11-26 21:16 -0800
                Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-12-02 21:53 -0500
                Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2011-12-04 21:25 -0800
                Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-12-05 22:41 -0500
                Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2011-12-05 19:58 -0800
          Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-11-22 19:57 -0400
            Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-25 22:04 -0500
              Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2011-11-26 21:18 -0800
                Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-11-27 08:34 -0400
                Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-11-27 08:39 -0800
                Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2011-11-27 20:07 +0000
                Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-12-02 21:48 -0500
                Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-12-03 14:52 -0400
                Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-12-05 22:50 -0500
                Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-12-06 07:21 -0400
      Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-25 21:54 -0500
    Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-25 21:47 -0500

csiph-web