Object-oriented domain analysis seeks to identify reusable items localized around objects e.g., classes, instances, systems of interacting objects, a… - Edward V. Berard

Recently, I have had conversations with a number of people who were attempting their first object-oriented project. Most of these people claimed to be using “use cases” in their object-oriented analysis and design approaches. However, listening to them describe their projects, it became quite apparent to me that there is a great deal of confusion regarding the definition, context, and use of use cases. This confusion can (and often does) lead to poorly-designed systems.

Objects are the real and conceptual things we find in the world around us. An object may be hardware, software, a concept (e.g., velocity), or even "flesh and blood." Objects are complete entities, i.e., they are not "simply information" or "simply information and actions." Software objects strive to capture as completely as possible the characteristics of the "real world" objects which they represent. Finally, objects are "black boxes," i.e., their internal implementations are hidden from the outside world, and all interactions with an object take place via a well-defined interface.

Software people seem to have a love-hate relationship with metrics. On one hand, they despise and distrust anything that sounds or looks like a measurement. They are quick to point out the "flaws" in the arguments of anyone who talks about measuring software products, software processes, and (especially) software people. On the other hand, these same people seem to have no problems identifying which programming language is the best, the stupid things that managers do to "ruin" projects, and who's methodology works in what situations.