Re: Visualizing Cocoa
Re: Visualizing Cocoa
- Subject: Re: Visualizing Cocoa
- From: email@hidden
- Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 08:15:19 -0700
>
Yes, we understand object-oriented programming. We've been
>
using the concepts and methods associated with objects (classes
>
and instances), inheritance, encapsulation, etc., for more than
>
a decade... in analysis for a couple decades. Don't be insulting.
John - I had no intention of being insulting. I got the (perhaps mistaken)
impression from the original post I was responding to that someone was
trying to make a jump from procedural programming to OOP using Cocoa.
Unfortunately, I do not have the luxury of being perfect, and I apologize
for my mistake.
>
It is much more likely to be related to the specific OOD/P
>
environment, i.e. Cocoa & Objective-C and the available
>
documentation.
What, exactly, is more likely to be related to this? I, myself, have
complained about the shortcomings in Apple's doc, but I still hold that
there is plenty of information out there and that it is possible to grok
Cooca without too much difficulty even with the current state of the doc.
>
I did start learning UML several years ago, before it was "unified".
>
UML isn't mature, yet, nor are the tools. It's still little more
>
than a loose collection of extremely overpriced toys.
I'm confused by your description of UML as "a loose collection of extremely
overpriced toys." The UML is simply a notation for describing complex
systems and processes. I share your frustration with the state of UML
tools, but using UML (or a predecessor like Booch of Objectory) provide a
mutually understood set of symbols that can be used to describe the system
or process from many angles and perspectives. Pardon me for making another
assumption here, but it sounds from your comments like you've started
learning UML tools, not the language itself. Diagramming can be just as
effectively done on paper, or even using CRC cards. I disagree that UML
isn't mature; the symbology is, even if the tools are not.
>
Your suggestion to look at the historical docs is well-taken;
>
I've noticed in other cases that such tend to cut through the
>
gibberish to the clear concepts from which it has become, ahh,
>
mutated (to be generous).
Yeah, NeXT was crappy at writing marketing copy, but they were better than
Apple at writing documentation.
>
Listen to Steve, though. He wants apps by last year if not sooner...
>
but if that is true we need to see some reasonable docs and other
>
tools (which is not to say that PB & IB aren't an excellent start).
>
But here I am with nearly a hundred pages to go in _LC_ and 1600
>
e-mail messages back-logged from these lists, so I'd better send
>
this and move on.
Oh, I'm not going to defend Steve or Apple on these issues. I agree that
the doc should be better, that OS X and the dev tools should be more
complete. Apple should listen more and be more responsive to developers'
stated needs (such as when 400 of your developers tell you they want/need
EOF/Cocoa, which they had promised to devlier). I've got a whole list of
additional complaints.
Jeff