OO and Procedural Work Units (was switch string)

["Stone, Brad V (TC)" <bvstone@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

This was a great example.  Thanks again, Fred.

I can see how one could take OO too far though, as you mentioned.  These
examples, while doing a great job of explaining OO, also show that if you
were to take something more complex, such as a work order, you could really
overdo it.  In other words, these examples are great, but lets now apply it
to a real world business programming situation for the benifit of those that
want to take it a step further.  These would be much more intense and I
could see how it would go so far as to be more confusing that it's worth.

Here's something to ponder.  It's how I'm viewing OO vs. Procedural
programming.  "Work units" is something I made up to explain this.

Assume our work order system is the problem at hand.

OO programming it will take 1000 work units to initially create, and then
each update requires 25 work units.

Procedural programming will take 350 work units to initially create, and
each update will take 48 work units.

The further you take OO, the more work units I can see it taking to produce
an end product.  And, assuming it's done correctly (you don't paint yourself
into a corner sub/superclassing everything) it will help similar
developement as well as updates (ie tying it in with inventory).

I'd love to hear other's opinions on this, especially anyone who's done
production Java and RPG/ILE (real ILE) programming on similar systems.

Brad
+---
| This is the JAVA/400 Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to JAVA400-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to JAVA400-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to JAVA400-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner: joe@zappie.net
+---