The naturalness of object orientation: beating a dead horse?
The naturalness of object orientation: beating a dead horse?
复制标题
面向对象的自然性：死马当活马医？
DOI：
10.1109/ms.2002.1003467
复制
发表时间：
2002
期刊：
影响因子：
3.3
通讯作者：
R. Glass
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
R. Glass
在最近的一篇专栏文章(“关于软件工作中涉及的创造力的故事”，2001年9月/10月)中，我暗示了一项研究，其目标是比较系统分析的面向对象、功能/过程和信息/数据方法。我称之为“另一次的故事”。这就是那个时候。在那篇专栏文章中，我描述了我看研究生分析指定信息系统任务的录像带时的无聊。我的观点是，起初看起来很无聊的活动后来变成了思考活动，任务的思考部分以80%比20%的比例压倒了任务的更多文书方面。我认为，这是强有力的证据，表明软件开发远比那些认为它容易和自动化的人让我们相信的要复杂得多。那就是那个专栏；现在就是这个了。我想重温这个话题，解释那些“无聊的”录像带是从哪里来的，为什么它们的最初目的至少和我从中得出的目的一样重要。令人惊讶的福利！多年来，软件领域几乎每一项新技术都受到了过度的利益要求。第四代语言将导致“没有程序员的编程”，CASE工具将带来“编程的自动化”，面向对象将成为系统开发的一种戏剧性的新方法，它将取代所有其他旧的方法。伴随着这种过度主张而来的有两种现象：我一旦更彻底地理解了这些概念，结果证明好处比声称的要少得多。我认为，从过度索赔到适度福利的转变很少依靠评价性研究的帮助。我在这里要说的是，研究人员在将技术和方法上的小麦从谷壳中分离出来方面帮助不大。这就是为什么我对我在上一篇专栏文章中暗示的研究印象如此深刻。录像带证据！这项研究是一次实实在在的尝试，目的是客观地比较(当时)新奇的面向对象方法与更传统的功能/过程和信息/数据替代方法的好处。(这项研究的首席研究员，宾夕法尼亚州立大学[现在是印第安纳大学]的Iris Vessey，是不是我的妻子也是我印象深刻的部分原因！)当时和现在一样，面向对象的主张是，它是一种更自然的问题解决形式，而…
I n a recent column (" A Story about the Creativity Involved in Software Work, " Sept./Oct. 2001), I hinted at a research study whose goal was to compare the object-oriented, function/process, and information/data approaches to systems analysis. I called it " a story for another time. " This is that time. In that column, I described my boredom in looking at videotapes of graduate students analyzing an assigned information systems task. My point was that what at first appeared to be boring activity turned out to be thinking activity, and that the thinking part of the task overwhelmed the task's more clerical aspects at an 80-to-20-percent ratio. That was strong evidence, I suggested , that software development is far more complex than those who believe it is easy and automatable have led us to believe. That was that column; this is now. I want to revisit this topic to explain where those " boring " videotapes came from and why their original purpose was at least as important as the purpose I derived from them. Amazing benefits! The software field has been subjected, over the years, to excessive claims of benefits for almost every new technology. Fourth-generation languages were to lead to " programming without programmers, " CASE tools would bring about " the automation of programming , " and object orientation was to be a dramatic new methodological approach to systems development that would replace all the other, older, methodologies. Two phenomena have accompanied such excessive claims: I Once the concepts are more thoroughly understood, the benefits turn out to be far more modest than claimed. I That transition from excessive claims to modest benefits has seldom been accomplished with the aid of evaluative research. Researchers, I am saying here, have been of little help in sorting the technological and methodological wheat from its chaff. That's why I am so impressed by the study I hinted at in the previous column. Videotape evidence! This study was an honest-to-goodness attempt to objectively compare the benefits of the (at that time) newfangled object-oriented approaches with the more traditional func-tion/process and information/data alternatives. (That the study's lead researcher, Iris Vessey of Penn State University [and now of Indiana University], is my wife also partly accounts for my being impressed!) The claims made for object orientation, then as now, were that it is a more natural form of problem solution and that …