Talk:Object-oriented analysis and design

message: The Booch sdsdat this point, yes? Should Object modeling language be merged into here, into Modeling language, or as part of a history section of Unified Modeling Language. Ewlyahoocom 06:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they should be merged or expanded as, it is very messy and all over the place. Vec 18:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Do  SHARATH Merge with Booch Method

message: Merging as a policy should be rejected. It runs against general Wikipedia Article Length Policy. It is a better editorial practice to arrange "knowledge" in smaller modules/units. Further, in the future, the Target Merge article will be too lengthy to be manageable.Connection 17:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree that merging in general should be rejected or discouraged, it all depends on the articles. In my experience there actually tend to be a lot of articles that are really about the same topic but they became two different articles because people just started one article without doing a good search and because editors in general -- at least some of them -- seem to get more satisfaction from creating new articles than improving existing ones.  But having said all that, I agree in this case, absolutely the two are not at all the same thing.  It's like saying "software development" and "programming language" are the same topic, they aren't and it's really the same here just up one level of abstraction, a modeling language is a tool you use when doing analysis and design but they are not the same. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 13:57, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discourage Merge 

message: Personally I feel that these articles shouldn't be merged.  Is there anyone here who wants to give reasoning as to why they should be?  GeorgeBills 05:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Shlaer-Mellor merge

message: Analysis & design stubs were merged in per the methodology of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Integration. Cwolfsheep 19:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Integration 

message: Why does "object oriented" redirect to this article instead of "object oriented programming"? I think the latter would be more appropriate. Thanks.
:I agree but I just checked and object-oriented does now go to OO programming not to analysis and design. MadScientistX11 (talk) 23:26, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect

message: Object-oriented analysis is arguably quite an abstract concept for most people.
How about including an example to illustrate the concept?
User:derekgillespie 13:07, 18 December 2006 (GMT)
:I suppose it is fairly abstract, but I'd suggest that more detail and examples ought to be in a separate article on OOA. There's already an article on OOD, so why not one on OOA? The purpose of this article is surely to give an overview and an entry point to anyone searching for OOAD, and so it shouldn't get too involved with the details of either. --Malleus Fatuarum 02:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Illustrative example?

message: Does any one think that there should be a disambiguation for this article even if OOD does not directly go to it.  There are other abreiviations for OOD such as Officer of the Deck and many others. Sith Penguin Lord 22:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation 

message: I have today rewritten parts of this article, and I felt as a result that the  and  tags could reasonably be removed. The article now seems to me to be the start of a reasonable portal into OOA/OOD. Or at least it would if there was actually a page on OOA. I was rather surprised to find that there isn't one. --Malleus Fatuarum 02:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO it makes sense to keep analysis and design as one topic when talking about OO. The distinction between the two is always fuzzy, even in other methodologies but with OO, at least in my experience it's fuzzy by design. I've been on lots of OO projects and no one ever says "OK, we finished analysis now let's do design". Sometimes people don't bother doing much analysis and design to begin with but when they do there is really no distinction between the two in my experience. I think it's because OO tends to go hand in hand with iterative development and agile methods approaches. MadScientistX11 (talk) 23:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: OOA

message: I rewrote most of the article. I added 6 inline references to classic OO books like Jacobsen and I therefor removed the tag that said the article needed inline refs. I removed a template called FOLDOC because so little of the original article remained and I didn't use the online dictionary it refers to MadScientistX11 (talk) 22:27, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The introduction should be rewritten shorter. Alphama (talk) 15:12, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrote Most of the Article 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Object-oriented analysis and design. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928035622/http://www.eden-study.org/articles/2002/isf4(4).pdf to http://www.eden-study.org/articles/2002/isf4(4).pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: very wide overlap. fgnievinski (talk) 02:37, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[Object-oriented design]] into [[Object-oriented analysis and design]]