4 ms·

> do you have a "best of" list to share? This Parnas paper we are discussing is one, and lately Ive been poring over "Document Processing in a Relational Datab

by bch 5y ago

> do you have a "best of" list to share? This Parnas paper we are discussing is one, and lately Ive been poring over "Document Processing in a Relational Database System (83)" by Stonebraker, et al, and I also really enjoy Ousterhout papers, though he seems to be enjoying a bit of a renaissance so a search is likely to pull up his modern work, which is fine - you'll find raft papers, philosophy of software design, and performance measuring, which to me still feel like they're channeling a bit of the same spirit as these more classic papers we're discussing. Since we're discussing classics - i'd be keen to have others jump in here too and (again) raise the profile of some perhaps underloved gems.

wasabigeek 5y ago
Thanks for this! I remember watching a video on the philosophy of software design (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmSAYlu0NcY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmSAYlu0NcY) but I'll definitely need to re-watch/read, as well as check out the rest of his work. Do you have a suggestion on how the article title could be better? I came across Robert Martin's post while trying to build a better intuition for SRP, and it referenced the Parnas paper. So the title was really me thinking "What does this paper have to do with the SRP?", though the '1972' was both for convenience (e.g. "What does 'On the Criteria to be Used in Decomposing Systems' have to do with the single responsibility principle"? is too long) and intrigue. Perhaps "How a 1972 paper relates to the Single Responsibility Principle"? The Parnas paper wasn't one that Martin initially credited for the SRP as well (see https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/downing/papers/SRP-1996.pdf https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/downing/papers/SRP-1996.pdf), so I didn't feel comfortable claiming that it had direct influence (e.g. "The paper that influenced the Single Responsibility Principle").
- bch 5y ago
  OT: s/Ontaro/Ongaro/g > Do you have a suggestion on how the article title could be better? I read "What does x have to do with y?" as implicitly dismissive, based on my experience. Its often rhetorical. "How a Paper From 1972 Solved Your OO SRP Problems From The 1990s and Beyond" seems more charitable and interesting to my ears. That title needs some editorial attention itself, but its a start. Anyway, you got a discussion started and hopefully illuminated some to good design, so your submission was a success.

by bch 5y ago

wasabigeek 5y ago

Thanks for this! I remember watching a video on the philosophy of software design (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmSAYlu0NcY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmSAYlu0NcY) but I'll definitely need to re-watch/read, as well as check out the rest of his work. Do you have a suggestion on how the article title could be better? I came across Robert Martin's post while trying to build a better intuition for SRP, and it referenced the Parnas paper. So the title was really me thinking "What does this paper have to do with the SRP?", though the '1972' was both for convenience (e.g. "What does 'On the Criteria to be Used in Decomposing Systems' have to do with the single responsibility principle"? is too long) and intrigue. Perhaps "How a 1972 paper relates to the Single Responsibility Principle"? The Parnas paper wasn't one that Martin initially credited for the SRP as well (see https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/downing/papers/SRP-1996.pdf https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/downing/papers/SRP-1996.pdf), so I didn't feel comfortable claiming that it had direct influence (e.g. "The paper that influenced the Single Responsibility Principle").

bch 5y ago
OT: s/Ontaro/Ongaro/g > Do you have a suggestion on how the article title could be better? I read "What does x have to do with y?" as implicitly dismissive, based on my experience. Its often rhetorical. "How a Paper From 1972 Solved Your OO SRP Problems From The 1990s and Beyond" seems more charitable and interesting to my ears. That title needs some editorial attention itself, but its a start. Anyway, you got a discussion started and hopefully illuminated some to good design, so your submission was a success.