That's a good example.

I probably wouldn't have called out the continuum, even though it's there.
I can't see the water in which I swim.

If Scott had pointed out the continuum but not picked points, I would
probably just have drawn the distinction between encapsulated and
un-encapsulated with two points. If I thought about it for a while longer,
I would probably have come up with hiding the presence of a field altogether
as another, stronger form of encapsulation. Perhaps I would have come up
with encapsulating by design.

...but because I can't see the water in which I am swimming, it's easier for
me to answer a question than to put forth a model. That's how it all
started.

Max Guernsey, III
Managing Member, Hexagon Software
http://www.hexsw.com
http://www.dataconstructor.com

-----Original Message-----
From: leanprogramming@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:leanprogramming@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Aeden Jameson
Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2009 3:50 PM
To: leanprogramming@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [leanprogramming] oo question

I believe I understand what a continuum is. What I'm curious about is
how you would characterize the continuum and what your points would
be. I'd like to recross the methaporical bridge you stated. The depth
of the sea is like [power of the indirection offered]. As for
choosing different points, perhaps there is one missing. For example,


Un-encapsulated
....
....

[Encapsulate Design] - You don't want the client to be aware of how
something is designed.


Cheers,
Aeden

On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 9:35 PM, Max Guernsey, III <max@...> wrote:
>
>
> I probably would have selected fewer points than him because I would not
> have thought to draw the distinction between encapsulation by instance and
> un-encapsulated.  They are both on the “not-sufficiently encapsulated”
side
> of the line for me so I think of them both as un-encapsulated.
>
>
>
> His distinction is right but it’s like describing the depth of the ocean
to
> me.  There’s:
>
> ·         Above water, where I try to stay.
>
> ·         Wet but still won’t crush my rib cage, where I might go if
> absolutely necessary.
>
> ·         Then there is too deep.
>
>
>
> If I were a SCUBA diver, I would probably draw different lines like:
>
> ·         Above water.
>
> ·         Where I wait while I decompress.
>
> ·         As deep as I am certified to go.
>
> ·         As deep as I will go to save someone’s life.
>
> ·         Too deep… sorry, Charlie: you’re toast.
>
>
>
> …but it’s still the same continuum of depth.
>
>
>
> Max Guernsey, III
>
> Managing Member, Hexagon Software
>
> http://www.hexsw.com
>
> http://www.dataconstructor.com
>
>
>
> From: leanprogramming@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:leanprogramming@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Aeden Jameson
> Sent: Saturday, May 09, 2009 7:42 PM
>
> To: leanprogramming@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [leanprogramming] oo question
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 6:14 PM, Max Guernsey, III <max@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Well. It is a continuum, right?
> How would you characterize the contiuum? What would be your points?
>
> Thanks for your time,
> Cheers,
> Aeden
>
>



--
Cheers,
Aeden

Software Musings @
http://aedenjameson.blogspot.com/


------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links