Re: Modelling in CS and Physics

[Aiviet Nguyen <aiviet2@yahoo.com>]

Hi Ut Say,

  I know the book of the gang of four on Design Patterns.
  Patterns are something like regularities and symmetries. But the
patterns presented in the book of four are rather adhoc. They are not
derived but just collected from experience. No principles and
classification for them.
   As I said, the physicists have learned the art of modelling for
generations so they are able to develope a technology out of it.
   But such a young field like Sofware Engineering
can learn a lot from the past's giants.
   My practical question is: what is the additional input information
we need to objectify a structural code?
   Can we earn money with that objectification, if we can find it? Only
in that case it would be worth pursuing further the issue.

Cheers
Aiviet

--- U't Say <utsay@yahoo.com> wrote:
>    Greetings,
> 
>    Compare to Physics and its thousand years of
> maturity, software
> engineering is still in the early infancy. But even
> so, if we look back
> when software is nothing but 2-bits values to
> represent the simple
> arithmetic operations up to now, it's undeniable
> that software has a much
> longer stride in its pace. I believe your answer is
> awaiting just beyond
> the next software evolution, after the so-called
> "software design
> patterns".
> 
>    If you have not already, I hope that you will
> enjoy the "Design
> Patterns, Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented
> Software" from the "big
> four" (Erich Gamma, Richard Helm, Ralph Johnson and
> John Vlissides). The
> book has a nice foreword by Grady Booch.
> 
>    Warmest regards,
>    UtSay

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com