Path: news.daimi.aau.dk!news.uni-c.dk!sunic!sunic.sunet.se!seunet!news2.swip.net!plug.news.pipex.net!pipex!dish.news.pipex.net!pipex!demon!galacta.demon.co.uk!rartym From: "Dr. Rich Artym" Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.lang.beta,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.python,comp.lang.sather,comp.lang.smalltalk Subject: Rapid Prototyping + statically-typed OOPLs? Date: Wed, 12 Jul 95 11:24:47 GMT Organization: Galacta Institute for Computer Rights Lines: 42 Message-ID: <805548287snz@galacta.demon.co.uk> Reply-To: rich@galacta.demon.co.uk X-NNTP-Posting-Host: galacta.demon.co.uk X-Newsreader: Demon Internet Simple News v1.29 Xref: news.daimi.aau.dk comp.object:33380 comp.lang.beta:442 comp.lang.c++:128585 comp.lang.eiffel:9157 comp.lang.python:4962 comp.lang.sather:1908 comp.lang.smalltalk:24284 The recent debacle about C hackers brought to mind the often-debated distinction (or lack thereof) between hacking and rapid prototyping. Without getting onto that topic, I WOULD be interested in hearing people's views on the use of statically-typed OOPLs in "real" rapid prototyping. I'd better narrow down the intended meaning of R.P. with a definition consistent with that used by some of its advocates (my words): Rapid Prototyping ::= An iterative approach to the analysis of requirements through production of an operational prototype in which elements of design are also explored. [Excludes the degenerate case in which no significant changes to the first prototype are needed.] The area that interests me most is the effect of static typing on design constraints. Since the requirements and design are not known fully until the R.P. development is ended, it would appear that the benefits offered by languages like C++ are not easily achievable in an R.P. environment, or conversely, that use of such languages could hamper the R.P. effort and so reduce the benefits of this form of development. The Smalltalk community often claims that unconstrained object handling is excellent for R.P., but I would like to hear from C++/Eiffel/Sather (or other) practitioners how their languages fare in an R.P. environment. For example, has anyone developed a genuine prototype in C++ using a very coarse or minimally-specific class organization, and then repeatedly changed it, and how did this work out? Was there an important negative impact when major internal class surgery was needed? Do you have any specific advice for others that may wish to carry out R.P. using (say) C++ or Eiffel? PS. Mark Mullin's "Rapid Prototyping for Object-Oriented Systems" is quite negative on C++ in this role, and doesn't address the above issues either. Would anyone like to recommend a more recent book that does? ########### Dr. Rich Artym ================ PGP public key available # galacta # Internet: rich@galacta.demon.co.uk DNS 158.152.156.137 # ->demon # rich@mail.g7exm[.uk].ampr.org DNS 44.131.164.1 # ->ampr # NTS/BBS : g7exm@gb7msw.#33.gbr.eu # ->nexus # Fun : Unix, X, TCP/IP, OSI, kernel, O-O, C++, Soft/Eng # ->NTS # More fun: Regional IP Coordinator Hertfordshire + N.London ########### Q'Quote : "Object type is a detail of its implementation."