The object-oriented brewery: a comparison of two object-oriented development methods

ABSTRACT

Interest in object-oriented methods has been rapidly increasing, as software developers and project managers try to reduce escalating development and maintenance costs. There is an increasing need to determine if there are differences in effectiveness between various methods of object-oriented software development, and whether techniques from more successful methods can be extracted and applied to improve other methods.This paper reports on research to compare the effectiveness of two methods for the development of object-oriented software. These methods are representative of two dominant approaches in the industry. The methods are the responsibility-driven method and a data-driven method that was developed at The Boeing Company and taught in a course available to the public.Each of the methods was used to develop a model of the same example system. A suite of metrics suitable for object-oriented software was used to collect data for each model, and the data was analyzed to identify differences.The model developed with the responsibility-driven method was found to be much less complex, and specifically to have much less coupling between objects and much more cohesion within an object.

REFERENCES

• 1: [1] S. Shlaer and S. Mellor, "Understanding Object-Oriented Analysis", Design Center Magazine, Hewlett-Packard Company, Jan. 1989.
• 2: Peter Wegner, Dimensions of object-based language design, ACM SIGPLAN Notices, v.22 n.12, p.168-182, Dec. 1987
• 3: Tim Rentsch, Object oriented programming, ACM SIGPLAN Notices, v.17 n.9, p.51-57, September 1982 [doi>10.1145/947955.947961]
• 4: Alan Snyder, Encapsulation and inheritance in object-oriented programming languages, ACM SIGPLAN Notices, v.21 n.11, p.38-45, Nov. 1986
• 5: [5] An Object Oriented Approach to Software Development, Course #GE-B0435, Boeing Computer Services, Seattle, Washington, 1991.
• 6: [6] M. K. Smith and S. R. Tockey, "An Integrated Approach to Requirements Definition Using Objects", Proceedings of the 10th Structured Development Forum, Aug., 1988.
• 7: [7] S. Tockey, "Using Off-the-Shelf CASE Tools to Build Object Oriented Analysis Specifications", Proceedings of the 11th Structured Development Forum, May 1990.
• 8: [8] B.J. Hoza, M. K. Smith, S. R. Tockey, "An Introduction to Object Oriented Analysis", Proceedings of the 5th Structured Techniques Association, May, 1989.
• 9: [9] S. Tockey, B. Hoza, S. Cohen, "Object Oriented Analysis: Building on the Structured Techniques", Proceedings of the Software Improvement Conference, Nov. 1990.
• 10: [10] Designing Object-Oriented Software: An Introduction, Digitalk, Portland, Oregon, 1992.
• 11: [11] E. Seidewitz and M. Stark, Principles of Object-Oriented Software Development with Ada, Millennium Systems, 1992.
• 12: Sally Shlaer , Stephen J. Mellor, Object-oriented systems analysis: modeling the world in data, Yourdon Press, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1988
• 13: Juanita J. Ewing, An object-oriented operating system interface, ACM SIGPLAN Notices, v.21 n.11, p.46-56, Nov. 1986
• 14: Michael S. Miller , Howard Cunningham , Chan Lee , Steven R. Vegdahl, The application accelerator illustration system, ACM SIGPLAN Notices, v.21 n.11, p.294-302, Nov. 1986
• 15: Rebecca Wirfs-Brock, An integrated color smalltalk-80 system, ACM SIGPLAN Notices, v.23 n.11, p.71-82, Nov. 1988
• 16: Kenneth S. Rubin , Adele Goldberg, Object behavior analysis, Communications of the ACM, v.35 n.9, p.48-62, Sept. 1992 [doi>10.1145/130994.130996]
• 17: Rebecca Wirfs-Brock , Brian Wilkerson , Lauren Wiener, Designing object-oriented software, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1990
• 18: [18] J. Odell, "Managing Object Complexity, Part I: Abstraction and Generalization", JOOP, 5(5), Sept. 1991, pp. 19-22.
• 19: Peter Pin-Shan Chen, The entity-relationship model—toward a unified view of data, ACM Transactions on Database Systems (TODS), v.1 n.1, p.9-36, March 1976 [doi>10.1145/320434.320440]
• 20: David E. Monarchi , Gretchen I. Puhr, A research typology for object-oriented analysis and design, Communications of the ACM, v.35 n.9, p.35-47, Sept. 1992 [doi>10.1145/130994.130995]
• 21: Peter Coad, Analysis & design OOA & OOD: a continuum of representation, Journal of Object-Oriented Programming, v.3 n.6, p.55-56, Feb. 1991
• 22: [22] S. Shlaer and S. Mellor, "Recursive Design and its Effect on the Project Life Cycle", Project Technology 1989.
• 23: [23] R. Hill, "Object-Oriented Design in Ada: A Transformational Approach Based on OOA", Project Technology, 1989.
• 24: [24] R. J. Norman, "Object-Oriented Systems Design: A Progressive Expansion of OOA", Systems Management, Aug. 1991.
• 25: [25] R. C. Sharble, S. S. Cohen, Boeing Company Report #BCS-G4059, The Boeing Co., Seattle, Wa., 1992.
• 26: [26] G. A. Pascoe, "Elements of Object-Oriented Programming", BYTE, 11(8), Aug. 1986, pp. 139-144.
• 27: H. Holbrook, III, A scenario-based methodology for conducting requirements elicitation, ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, v.15 n.1, p.95-104, Jan 1990 [doi>10.1145/382294.382725]
• 28: Shyam R. Chidamber , Chris F. Kemerer, Towards a metrics suite for object oriented design, ACM SIGPLAN Notices, v.26 n.11, p.197-211, Nov. 1991
• 29: K. Lieberherr , I. Holland , A. Riel, Object-oriented programming: an objective sense of style, ACM SIGPLAN Notices, v.23 n.11, p.323-334, Nov. 1988

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  D. Software
  D.1 PROGRAMMING TECHNIQUES

Additional Classification:
  D. Software
  D.2 SOFTWARE ENGINEERING

General Terms:
Design, Languages