Re: OOP, C, COM, and Bonobo

[Mathieu Lacage <mathieu eazel com>]

Miguel de Icaza <miguel helixcode com> writes:

> > But, where is the design going on?  I can't find class diagrams (or
> > any other representation, short of textual) of the GTK+/Bonobo
> > object model.
> 
> I did not know that lack of diagrams meant that the code did not have
> any OO features.  
> 
> We could use better documentation certainly.
> 
> > I would love to become a major contributor to, and user of, the GTK+ and
> > Bonobo frameworks however, I nor my peers can really justify the
> > investment in an object model that most certainly has potential but is
> > arguably lacking in  "fundamentals".
> 
> We do have different views on what a "fundamental" is it seems.
> 
> We are used to read source code to understand how things work, and not
> reading diagrams.  

Reading the source code should not be seen as the best way to understand
how things work but rather as a crude temporary measure waiting for
documentation. I don't think that saying "reading the code is the best way
to learn piece of software X" is the best approach to software design.


Bonobo could certainly use diagrams to describe its overall architecture 
to trained engineers... This would also help identify obvious architectural
flaws which exist as in any piece of stuff written by stupid human beings.


Mathieu
-- 
Mathieu Lacage <mathieu eazel com>