Talk:Object-oriented modeling
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Category
editIt still needs Category, See also, Bibliography.Connection
Merge with Object modeling language
editIt is my proposal to merge the Object modeling language here for the following reasons:
- The term "Object modeling language" seems incomplete or confusing.
- The term seems incomplete because the articles describes the series of object-oriented modeling methods. So the term could/should be "Object-oriented modeling language"
- Both the term "Object modeling language" and "Object-oriented modeling language" is confusing, because UML is the standard object-oriented modeling language current article
- Bringing it all together under the term "Object-oriented modeling" seems like a good alternative.
-- Mdd (talk) 23:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- I oppose the merge. First, they are clearly different things. UML is an object modeling language. Object modeling is what you use UML for. Object modeling should talk about things like Booch, Jacobsen, etc. the process of modeling. You can do object modeling drawing boxes and arrows on a white board with no modeling language. Regarding your specific issues: 1) I don't see why object modeling language is confusing. It seems perfectly clear. As I said UML is an obvious example but there are other languages I've used. You could say OWL is a modeling language and Protege is a tool to do modeling. 2) I agree, this article as it stands now is awful, that is an issue with the article. 3) Again, no confusion UML is a modeling language object modeling is what you do with it. 4) Your last point wasn't substantive, no reply needed. BTW, I do agree that renaming this article is probably warranted. I was surprised there was no article for OO methods (booch, rumbaugh, etc.) If there was such an article I would say merging OO modeling into THAT article might make sense. MadScientistX11 (talk) 16:19, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- Good idea. Modeling is the more interesting thing. Modeling is what you do. The language is just one aspect of how you do it. People tend to put too much emphasis on 'language'. But the process is more important than the tools. And I don't think 'object-modeling language' is a notable term anyway. I think it's a WP invention. Merge object-modeling language into this article. Stevebroshar (talk) 13:29, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
Programming and Modeling are not the same thing
editThe article currently (but not for long :) opens as follows: "Object-oriented modeling (OOM), also called object-oriented programming (OOP) is a modeling paradigm mainly used in computer programming. Prior to the rise of OOM, the dominant paradigm was procedural programming, which emphasized the use of discrete reusable code blocks that could stand on their own, take variables, perform a function on them, and return values." This is simply wrong. Object-oriented modeling is not the same thing as programming. They are very different activities. Actually in the OO community there are religious wars about the two, some people think it's terrible to do programming before doing modeling. Some people think modeling is just a waste of time -- especially with high level languages such as Java -- and just get to the code and forget the model. But they absolutely are different activities, this is really basic stuff, I'm surprised that sentence lasted more than a day. I'm changing it as soon as I finish typing this. MadScientistX11 (talk) 16:25, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Copied Some Text from OO Analysis and Design
editI re-used some text I wrote for a related article: Object-Oriented Analysis and Design I think by the time I was done editing almost none of the original text was left, but I think it's a policy that you document when you do that so I am doing so. Obviously the two topics are highly related. MadScientistX11 (talk) 17:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- I just removed the OOM detail info from OOAD article and merged it into this article. I suspect that what I merged is the stuff you mention here. The content in the two articles was very similar yet rather different too. I think the info was copied (forked) and then modified over the years. IMO no point having duplicate info and OOM has its own article so we should include detail about it here rather than in some other article. OOAD now references OOM, but does dive into details about it. Stevebroshar (talk) 13:23, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
Removed merge proposal
editThere was a proposal to merge the article object-modeling language into this one. It had been up for a year with no support and I disagreed with it for reasons documented so after revising the object modeling language article I decided to remove it. MadScientistX11 (talk) 14:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- I do think that object-modeling language should merged into this article (OOM). Stevebroshar (talk) 15:31, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
Merge into OOAD proposal
editSuggest merge this article into Object-oriented analysis and design#Object-oriented modeling for better organization and clarification. by Softzen (talk) 07:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- No. Everything in this universe is related but we don't want to have just one WP article. We have to split stuff up. That's our job. OOM seems like a separate thing and it already has an article. Let's leave it that way. OOM is not OOAD, OOD, OOA or OOP. IMO, it should have its own article. Stevebroshar (talk) 13:26, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
Do you agree? Please share your opinions. The reasons are:
- OOM and OOAD are tightly inter-connected. OOAD is done through OOM, and OOM activities can be elaborated into two stages or abstract levels: OOA and OOD.
- This article's description of OOM is currently incomplete and written with old waterfall thinking, not iterative.
- I oppose the merge. Object-Oriented modeling is not the same as OO Analysis and Design. OO Analysis and design are major phases in an OO Software development process. OO modeling is a technique you use in OO Analysis and Design. There is more to analysis and design than just modeling. For example, defining a budget for the overall project, developing a project plan for the next phase, etc. But more importantly it's possible to do object-oriented modeling for reasons other than analysis and design of a software system. You can do object-oriented modeling of the real world for purposes that have nothing to do with writing application software. For example, in the 80's I worked with a tool from Intellicorp called Simmkit. You would create OO models and then simulate them to better understand real world processes, e.g., the flow of parts on a factory floor. That was OO modeling but it had nothing to do with the analysis and design phase of a software lifecycle. There are also tools for process modeling that can be used for business re-engineering, to make a business process more efficient. Those also can be completely independent from efforts to write software. Your comments on the faults of this current article are irrelevant to the merge discussion. If there is something wrong with the articles, and I agree both need a lot of work, then that is an issue to fix the articles not to merge them. MadScientistX11 (talk) 15:02, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- To add to what I said above if you do a search in Google with the following string: "object-oriented modelling business process redesign" you will see a lot of papers on how to do object-oriented modeling that is distinct from the analysis and design phases of a software development life cycle. MadScientistX11 (talk) 16:00, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- Makes sense. I think OOM is a practice that can be used outside of OOAD ... even though it came from OOAD. OOM seems to have emerged as its own thing. Stevebroshar (talk) 15:30, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
- To add to what I said above if you do a search in Google with the following string: "object-oriented modelling business process redesign" you will see a lot of papers on how to do object-oriented modeling that is distinct from the analysis and design phases of a software development life cycle. MadScientistX11 (talk) 16:00, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- I oppose the merge. Object-Oriented modeling is not the same as OO Analysis and Design. OO Analysis and design are major phases in an OO Software development process. OO modeling is a technique you use in OO Analysis and Design. There is more to analysis and design than just modeling. For example, defining a budget for the overall project, developing a project plan for the next phase, etc. But more importantly it's possible to do object-oriented modeling for reasons other than analysis and design of a software system. You can do object-oriented modeling of the real world for purposes that have nothing to do with writing application software. For example, in the 80's I worked with a tool from Intellicorp called Simmkit. You would create OO models and then simulate them to better understand real world processes, e.g., the flow of parts on a factory floor. That was OO modeling but it had nothing to do with the analysis and design phase of a software lifecycle. There are also tools for process modeling that can be used for business re-engineering, to make a business process more efficient. Those also can be completely independent from efforts to write software. Your comments on the faults of this current article are irrelevant to the merge discussion. If there is something wrong with the articles, and I agree both need a lot of work, then that is an issue to fix the articles not to merge them. MadScientistX11 (talk) 15:02, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
India Education Program course assignment
edit
This article was the subject of an educational assignment supported by Wikipedia Ambassadors through the India Education Program.
The above message was substituted from {{IEP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 20:02, 1 February 2023 (UTC)