www.syntropy.co.uk/syntropy/designing-object-systems.pdf
I found this selection to be interesting because it presents the conflict between an object system design and the existing rigid and disciplined design management process (the one that is currently working, as old as it may be).
The introduction of new techniques, new ways of organising software and new working practices is likely to change matters in the future. Although we are not convinced that component-based software reuse will bring significant benefits as quickly as many people claim, it is clearly a factor which, if carefully managed, could make some aspects of software construction more routine. As important will be the impact of standardised software architectures, giving designers a head-start by providing proven frameworks for particular kinds of systems.
For the moment, though, we feel it necessary to separate clearly the design process from the management process. The design process is the process by which the designer’s skills are harnessed and directed. As befits a creative process, it cannot be rigid and constraining. By contrast, the management process must be rigid and disciplined because it is the basis for important commercial decisions, the kind of decisions influenced entirely by logic not beauty, and underwritten by the root of commerce: money.
Double entry bookkeeping is the oldest of money system designs underwritten by the root of commerce: Money. Is it surprising that in my prior post regarding double entry bookkeeping I cite one person that sees Object Oriented System design as a great threat to the system.
The significance of a thing in this fear oriented, threat oriented world is determined by the degree of fear it instills and the meaning of the threat to those that fear it.
Is object oriented thinking the greatest threat to the banking system. That is a strange situation. Object orientation is the current chosen methodology for managing systems. Banks use it to model and implement their systems. Big business uses it for all their business, uses it to essentially define their entire business structure. If the application of the object model says that the business must restructure practices based on what the object model obviously points out is the best conceptual structure for the business practice, the business will implement it.
The object model tells me that debt free money is the best object model for the banking system.
The banking system is smart. It is a big business. It knows object oriented system design and its application to business practices. Their fundamental system, the balance of debt to assets where all money is debt money (bank asset) balancing the liability created by loaning the asset is challenged by a better system.
That better system in my opinion is to retain the double entry system up one notch from residing at the bank level to residing at the government level where all money created by the government is a conceptual liability but is a real object asset at the bank level. That is a shift in power to create money to the government which is its sovereign right.
Where else might I find a growing fear on the part of big banking about what might be the result of applying our best object oriented system design and implementation methodologies to their business of money? Will banksters begin an inquisition of object oriented heretical economic thinkers that say debt free money is the super class object of the money system that must replace the old system of debt money?
I should search around with google to find signs of bankster fear of applying object oriented thinking to the core of their business model. Fear expressed as unreasonable response to the truth.
No comments:
Post a Comment