blocks|key|1946207|text|好吧，谷歌发现了一些这样的beast的痕迹，它清楚地描述了一种类似方法论的东西：|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|offset|length|data|1946208|1946209|本文档旨在向读者简要介绍面向对象方法学(OOM)。该文档涵盖的信息包括OOM的简要概述、其优点、过程以及OOM中的一些主要技术。|blockquote|1946210|1946211|OOM是一种新的系统开发方法，鼓励和促进软件组件的重用。利用这种方法，可以在组件的基础上开发计算机系统，其使得能够有效地重用现有的组件，并且便于由其他系统共享其组件。通过采用OOM，可以获得更高的生产率、更低的维护成本和更好的质量。|1946212|该方法采用了对象管理组织(OMG)的国际标准统一建模语言(UML)。UML是IT界广泛采用的面向对象分析和设计的建模标准。|1946213|OOM生命周期由六个阶段组成。这些阶段是业务计划阶段、业务体系结构定义阶段、技术体系结构定义阶段、增量交付计划阶段、增量设计和构建阶段，以及部署阶段。|1946214|1946215|但是这个东西(可能)传播得不是很远。也许你应该向你的联系人索要一些推荐信。|1946216|entityMap|0|LINK|mutability|MUTABLE|url|http://www.ogcio.gov.hk/eng/prodev/eoom.htm^0|D|5|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|Z|8|@]|9|@$A|10|B|11|1|12]]|C|$]]|$1|D|3|-4|5|6|7|13|8|@]|9|@]|C|$]]|$1|E|3|F|5|G|7|14|8|@]|9|@]|C|$]]|$1|H|3|-4|5|6|7|15|8|@]|9|@]|C|$]]|$1|I|3|J|5|6|7|16|8|@]|9|@]|C|$]]|$1|K|3|L|5|6|7|17|8|@]|9|@]|C|$]]|$1|M|3|N|5|6|7|18|8|@]|9|@]|C|$]]|$1|O|3|-4|5|6|7|19|8|@]|9|@]|C|$]]|$1|P|3|Q|5|6|7|1A|8|@]|9|@]|C|$]]|$1|R|3|-4|5|6|7|1B|8|@]|9|@]|C|$]]]|S|$T|$5|U|V|W|C|$X|Y]]]]

Well, Google found some traces of such a <a href="http://www.ogcio.gov.hk/eng/prodev/eoom.htm" rel="noreferrer">beast</a> which is clearly describing a methodology-like thing:
<blockquote>
This document aims at introducing briefly to the readers the Object Oriented Methodology (OOM). Information covered in the document includes a brief overview of the OOM, its benefits, the processes and some of the major techniques in OOM.
OOM is a new system development approach encouraging and facilitating re-use of software components. With this methodology, a computer system can be developed on a component basis which enables the effective re-use of existing components and facilitates the sharing of its components by other systems. Through the adoption of OOM, higher productivity, lower maintenance cost and better quality can be achieved.
This methodology employs international standard Unified Modeling Language (UML) from the Object Management Group (OMG). UML is a modeling standard for OO analysis and design which has been widely adopted in the IT industry.
The OOM life cycle consists of six stages. These stages are the business planning stage, the business architecture definition stage, the technical architecture definition stage, the incremental delivery planning stage, the incremental design and build stage, and the deployment stage.
</blockquote>
But this thing didn't spread (likely) very far. Maybe you should ask your contact for some references.

blocks|key|535969|text|面向对象编程是一种在编写代码时使用的编程技术。这与方法论有所不同，方法论是一种规划、管理和实现软件项目的方法。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|535970|请参阅：http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-oriented_programming|offset|length|535971|entityMap|0|LINK|mutability|MUTABLE|url|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-oriented_programming^0|0|4|1K|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|N|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|C|5|6|7|O|8|@]|9|@$D|P|E|Q|1|R]]|A|$]]|$1|F|3|-4|5|6|7|S|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|G|$H|$5|I|J|K|A|$L|M]]]]

Object Oriented programming is a programming technique used when writing code. This is something different from a methodology which is a way of planning, managing and implementing a software project.

see: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-oriented_programming" rel="nofollow noreferrer">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-oriented_programming</a>

blocks|key|538550|text|苹果和桔子。OO是一种设计代码的方式。Scrum/瀑布/螺旋等是关于如何管理项目的。它们彼此独立。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|538551|也就是说，你真的应该研究一下OO。|538552|entityMap^0|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|F|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|C|5|6|7|G|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|D|3|-4|5|6|7|H|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|E|$]]

Apples and oranges. OO is a way of designing code. Scrum/waterfall/spiral, etc... are about how you manage a project. They're independent of each other.

That said, you really should look into OO.

blocks|key|1946278|text|在20世纪80年代末和90年代初，一些作者发表了标题和简介中包含“方法”或“方法”一词的作品(特别是书籍)；这些作品专注于面向对象的建模方法，详细解释了人们应该用来构建系统的结构和动态模型的建模原语(元模型)。然而，他们对后续过程的处理是微乎其微的。后来，他们受到了批评，因为他们使用了“方法论”这个术语。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|1946279|如今，“方法论”通常被认为至少包括过程方面、建模(或产品)方面和人方面。建立在我上面提到的80-90年代作品传统上的现代方法通常被称为“面向对象”，因为当时使用的建模方法实际上是面向对象的。|1946280|实际上，一种方法的过程方面是否因该方法的建模方面而有本质上的不同，这在研究界是一个有争议的话题。例如，面向对象方法的过程方面与面向代理的方法的过程方面有很大的不同吗？如果您认为不是，那么“面向对象的方法”这个术语可能对您没有任何意义。|1946281|entityMap^0|0|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|H|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|C|5|6|7|I|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|D|3|E|5|6|7|J|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|F|3|-4|5|6|7|K|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|G|$]]

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, some authors published work (especially books) with titles and blurbs including the word "method" or "methodology" in them; these works focused on object-oriented modelling approaches, explaining in detail the modelling primitives (metamodel) that one should use to construct structural and dynamic models of systems. Their treatment of the process to follow, however, was minimal. Later, they were criticised by applying the term "methodology".

Nowadays, "methodology" is usually thought of including a process aspect, a modelling (or product) aspect, and a people aspect, at least. The modern methodologies that were built on the tradition of those 1980s-1990s works that I mentioned above are often called "object-oriented", because the modelling approaches that were used then were, in fact, object-oriented.

Actually, it is a debated topic in research circles whether the process aspect of a methodology is substantially different depending on the modelling aspect of said methodology. For example, is the process aspect of an object-oriented method very different from the process aspect of an agent-oriented one? If you think it isn't, then the term "object-oriented methodology" may make no sense to you.

blocks|key|1946326|text|面向对象是一种完整的迭代方法，每个阶段都用于验证或暴露前一个阶段中的漏洞。它涵盖了从识别所有涉众，从所有人引出需求，记录用例中的需求(不是原始O-O方法论的一部分，但当Jacobsen加入Booch+&+Rumbaugh在Rational+&+UML合并到他的Objectory中时采用的)的一切，一旦它们通过基于文本的用例文档验证了，需求分析就开始了，涉众可以理解。分析仍然是在业务问题空间，而不是软件解决方案空间。架构和系统级设计是为已识别的业务需求创建解决方案空间的第一步。然后，任务可以被分解，低层设计和编程，通过UML用例/对象图中最初在分析过程中创建并在系统设计中细化的用例层次结构来实现设计，最终交给程序员。OOADP中的一个硬性规则是在允许开始编码之前对分析和设计工件进行基线处理。业务或营销部门在编码期间需要的任何更改都必须提交给由开发部门主导的更改控制委员会。他们将对请求的更改进行优先级排序，评估它们对规范类层次结构和分布式设计的影响，确定每个更改将施加多少额外的时间、金钱和资源，并返回给业务和营销人员并说-“这是时间、金钱和资源的成本。您愿意接受成本吗？”如果不是，更改可能会被丢弃或移到下一个版本中。当你设计一个企业规模的项目时，你只有一次机会去创建它的类层次结构的骨架。您越晚尝试修改系统并不得不修改类和依赖项，您就越有可能招致额外的费用、时间延迟、需求需求和bug。在你以前回归测试过的地方经常会有细微的bug，然后就消失了。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|1946327|敏捷人员曾经轻视地将完整的OOADP方法论称为"BDUF“(前面的大设计)。Scrum被设计成与之相反，5到6个程序员团队只与一个负责业务/客户需求的产品负责人一起工作，并且只知道所有需求的关键视图，偶尔会在她确定需求或差距时引入其他中小企业。任务被写成3x5卡片上的“故事”(这有点简化--它们可以是几种形式的需求或需求变更中的任何一种)，并且一次处理一个小组，目的是在2到3周的“冲刺”结束前完成每个小组。未完成的任务被放回积压的故事中，进行分析以确定此团队负责的项目部分的状态，并将剩余的一些故事分发给下一个冲刺。商业和营销对敏捷的喜爱和对O-O的厌恶一样多，因为它们可以插入新的或更改过的故事或用例，或者几乎在开发阶段结束时的其他形式的需求。最终的产品不断变化，以满足商业和营销所认为的快速变化的需求和时间窗口(通常是歇斯底里地夸大)。当您将一个项目扩展到多个Scrum团队时，所产生的各种小问题将使用Scrum的周期性Scrum来处理，在Scrum中，团队的Scrum+Master聚集在一起，试图让每个团队保持在相同的轨道上，并确定是否有任何团队有阻碍另一个团队进展的积压项目。项目越大，协调所有这些团队的官僚机构就越多，随着故事的更新或新故事的添加，每个团队都会微妙地改变其原始任务。|1946328|从最初的CRC卡和Wirf-Brock改进一直到今天的UML迭代，我一直在使用O-O。我甚至花了几年时间作为贝尔实验室四人团队的一员，向AT&T开发团队教授O-O和C%2B%2B。我也参与过敏捷(主要是Scrum和ScrumBan，Scrum和日本看板的合并)。我从1998年开始使用Agile+Scrum，那时还没有正式的标准。敏捷只是一种局部的方法论，所以每个项目都必须找到其他工具或方法论来填补空白。我已经看到，如果团队不是由一级ScrumMasters和所有专家开发人员组成，在彼此的技能集上进行交叉培训，事情就会变得非常丑陋。如今的公司已经将费率降到了如此之低，以至于我15或20年前与之共事的大多数真正有天赋的程序员都在从事其他谋生的工作&在移动应用程序或开源项目上获得编程乐趣。你很少看到一个真正有才华的团队。公司雇佣的人没有必要的10倍的“摇滚明星”技能来担任某些角色，Scrum团队的人员配备也可能不稳定。此外，你越是尝试将Scrum扩展到更大的项目，结果就越有问题，部门开始摆脱规范的Scrum规则，寻找更好的混合体。|1946329|正如它的早期支持者首先说的那样，敏捷非常适合进行维护、增强和较小的无时间限制的项目，我已经看到它得到了非常有效的利用。然而，对于一个公司企业项目，它不是由市场营销人员的变化无常的风和业务人员对外部市场需求或时间窗口的轻微变化的歇斯底里所驱动的，我每次都会选择O-O。|1946330|每当我遇到同时具有面向对象和敏捷需求的合同机会时，我都会选择另一种方式。|1946331|entityMap^0|0|0|0|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|L|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|C|5|6|7|M|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|D|3|E|5|6|7|N|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|F|3|G|5|6|7|O|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|H|3|I|5|6|7|P|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|J|3|-4|5|6|7|Q|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|K|$]]

Object-orientation is an entire iterative methodology, with each stage used to validate or expose holes in the previous. It covers everything from identifying ALL stakeholders, requirements elicitation from them all, documenting the requirements in Use Cases (not part of the original O-O methodology, but adopted when Jacobsen joined Booch &amp; Rumbaugh at Rational &amp; UML merged in his Objectory), Analysis of the requirements begins once they had been validated with text-based Use Case documents the stakeholders can understand. Analysis is still in the business problem space, not the software solution space. Architechure &amp; System-level Design are the first steps in creating the solution space for the identified business needs. The tasks can then be broken up and Low-level Design and Programming, implementing the Design via the case hierarchy originally created during Analysis and refined in System Design in UML Case/Object diagrams is finally handed off to the coders. One hard-and-fast rule in OOADP is that the Analysis and Design artifacts are baselined BEFORE coding is allowed to begin. Any changes that the business or marketing departments want during coding MUST be submitted to a Change Control Committee, dominated by Development. They will prioritize requested changes, evaluate their effect on the canonical class hierarchy and distributed design, determine how much extra time, money, and resources each change will impose, and go back to the business &amp; marketing people and say - "This is the cost in time, money, and resources. Are you willing to accept the cost?" If not, the change may be discarded or moved into the next release. When you design an enterprise-sized project, you only really get that one chance at creating its skeleton of the class hierarchies. The later you try to modify the systems and have to modify classes and dependencies, the more likely you are to incur extra expenses, time delays, requirement needs - and bugs. Often subtle bugs in areas you had formerly regression-tested to hell and gone.

Agile people used to refer contemptuously to the full OOADP methodology as "BDUF" (big design up front). Scrum is designed to be the antithesis of this, with 5 or 6 programmer teams working with only one Product owner who is responsible for business/customer needs, and knows only a keyhole view of all requirements, occasionally bringing in other SMEs as she identifies a need or gap. Tasks are written out as "stories" (that is a bit of a simplification - they can be any one of several forms of requirements or requirement changes) on 3x5 cards and are tackled a small group at a time, with the intention of finishing each group by the end of a 2 or 3 week "sprint." Undone tasks are put back in the backlog of stories, an analysis is done to determine the state of the piece of the project this team is responsible for, and some of the remaining stories are passed out for the next sprint. Business &amp; marketing LOVE Agile as much as they HATED O-O because they can insert new or altered stories or Use Cases, or other forms of requirements almost to the end of the development stage. The final product keeps changing to meet what business &amp; marketing see as quickly shifting needs and time windows (usually hysterically exaggerated). The various little stovepipes caused when you scale a project up to more than one Scrum Team are dealt with using periodic Scrums of Scrums, where the Scrum Masters of the teams get together and try to keep every team on the same tracks and determine if any teams have backlog items that block progress within another team. The bigger the project, the more bureaucracy is added to coordinating all these teams, each subtly changing their original mandate as stories are updated or new ones added. 

I've worked with O-O since the original CRC cards and Wirf-Brock refinements all the way through today's iteration of UML. I even spent several years as part of a four-man team from Bell Labs, teaching O-O and C++ to AT&amp;T development teams. I've also worked with Agile (mostly Scrum and ScrumBan, a merger of Scrum and Japanese Kanban). I have used Agile Scrum since 1998, before there was an official standard. Agile is only a partial methodology, so every project has to find other tools or methodologies to fill in the gaps. I've seen thing get REALLY ugly if the teams were not made up of 1st-level ScrumMasters and all expert developers, cross-trained in each others' skillsets. Corporations today have made rates so low, that most of the truly gifted programmers I worked with 15 or 20 years ago are doing something else for a living &amp; getting their coding jollies working on mobile apps or open source projects. You rarely see a truly talented team. Companies hire people without the necessary 10x "rock star" skills for some of the roles, and Scrum teams can be erratically staffed. Also, the more you try to scale Scrum for larger projects, the more problematic the results and the more the department begins to shed canonical Scrum rules, looking for some hybrid that works better.

Agile is, as its early proponents first said, excellent for doing maintenance, enhancements, and smaller non-time-boxed projects and I've seen it used very effectively. However, for a corporate enterprise project that is not driven by the fickle winds of marketers and business people's hysteria about slight changes in an external market's needs or time windows, I'll take O-O every time.

Whenever I'm presented with a contract opportunity that has both Object Orientation and Agile in the same set of requirements, I run the other way.

blocks|key|1946176|text|在过去，人们相信面向对象编程将会解决世界饥饿问题。我怀疑现在敏捷将会做到这一点，他们把它们放在一起:-)|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|1946177|严肃地说，尽管有些人把面向对象设计上升到了设计方法论的地位--以一种正式的方式识别参与者和行为来开发设计，但它实际上是一套关于如何设计软件的原则。它当然不是一种管理软件项目开发的方法，就像Scrum和敏捷一样。|1946178|entityMap^0|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|F|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|C|5|6|7|G|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|D|3|-4|5|6|7|H|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|E|$]]

Back in the day people believed that Object Oriented programming was going to solve world hunger. I suspect that now agile is going to do that, they've lumped them together :-)

Seriously though, although some people took object oriented design to the status of a design methodology - identify actors &amp; behaviours in a formal way to develop the design, it is really a set of principles about how to design software. It certainly isn't a methodology for managing the development of software projects like Scrum and agile might be.

I have been looking at different programming methodologies: Scrum, waterfall, spiral but someone told about one called Object-Oriented. Now as far as I know that's a paradigm and not a methodology.

If it is a methodology can someone please explain how it differs from Agile or waterfall?

What is Object-Oriented Methodology?

翻译质量差，导致语言生硬或混乱。

没有提供实际的解决方法或示例。

解答不清晰，无法理解或解决问题。

页面排版不美观，阅读体验差。

文章

问答

视频

学习中心

腾讯云实验室

直播

竞赛

腾讯云代码分析专区

腾讯iOA零信任安全管理系统专区

腾讯云架构师技术同盟交流圈

腾讯云数据库专区

腾讯云顾问专区

腾讯云原生专区

腾讯混元专区

腾讯云TCE专区

腾讯云Lighthouse专区

腾讯云HAI专区

腾讯云Edgeone专区

腾讯云存储专区

腾讯云智能专区

腾讯轻联专区 

腾讯云开发专区

TAPD专区

腾讯轻量云游戏服专区

腾讯云最具价值专家

腾讯云架构师技术同盟

腾讯云创作之星

腾讯云开发者先锋

腾讯云代码助手

云原生构建

TAPD 敏捷项目管理

Cloud Studio

SDK中心

API中心

命令行工具

涵盖代码开发、场景应用、自动测试全流程，助你从零构建专属AI助手

一站式MCP教程库，解锁AI应用新玩法

我一直在研究不同的编程方法: Scrum、瀑布、螺旋，但有人告诉我其中一种称为面向对象。据我所知，这是一个范式，而不是一种方法论。如果这是一种方法论，请解释一下它与敏捷或瀑布有何不同？

问什么是面向对象方法论？
EN

回答 6

Stack Overflow用户

Stack Overflow用户

Stack Overflow用户

社区

活动

圈层

关于

腾讯云开发者

热门产品

热门推荐

更多推荐

问什么是面向对象方法论？EN

回答 6

Stack Overflow用户

Stack Overflow用户

Stack Overflow用户

社区

活动

圈层

关于

腾讯云开发者

热门产品

热门推荐

更多推荐

问什么是面向对象方法论？
EN