Skip to main content

4+1 View Model

 This week, we looked at many different resources: two very short videos ("The 4+1 Model" by the Virtual Training Company and "Six Blind Men" by Phat Phish) and an article by Grady Booch titled The Elephant and the Blind Programmers. What they all had in common is that they all touched on either the 4+1 view model, or a concept known as wisdom gap, which is very closely related to the model. 

In order to explain the need for the 4+1 model, Booch relates it to the old Indian story, which talks about how different blind men examine an elephant and come to different conclusions as to what it is, since they are all looking at different parts of it. The moral of the story is that they are all right in their own way, yet none of them have the full picture. The same applies to the model. Depending on who you are and what part of a system you're working on, you'll be interested in looking at it from a certain way, which will definitely differ from the other team members. Even one person might (and should) be interested in all perspectives, even if not working with them directly, as it provides a better idea of the system as a whole. 

The model is divided into 4 and 1 because of who interacts with each model: the first four (development, logical, physical, process) refer to views that the people working on a project might interact with, while the fifth (use case) refers to what the end client will see. In this model, it's a bit more obvious why it's so important to look at the whole picture, since a developer who has no idea how a client might use their application will have a very hard time knowing how to work, what to improve, what to prioritize, etc., and having an idea of the whole system will allow him/her to take better decisions and turn in a better project. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is Design Dead?

 This week, we had to read Is Design Dead? by Martin Fowler. Just by reading the title, the thought of agile methodologies popped into my head, since they do involve design, just not as much as we're accustomed to. And not too surprisingly, Fowler reached a similar conclusion: design is NOT dead, it has just evolved along with us to keep up with today's standards.  Before, design was used to make sure that you knew everything you needed to get done, and it let you find any flaws in your plan beforehand. It was meant as an all-encapsulating process that all future code will be based on. Today, it has maintained its role as a guide, as to not make the developer feel totally lost, but with today's fast-paced work environment and ever-changing requirements, with the help of methodologies such as Extreme Programming, it has evolved to become more dynamic and easier to change.  For my personal opinion, I've had experiences (both academic and professional) where a bit of desig...
Post a Comment
Read more

Why is an architect?

  This week's (very short) article, Who Needs an Architect?, Martin Fowler explains to us the different definitions of architects that exist in the software world. The first and most common definition, which Fowler disagrees with, says that an architect is (s)he who helps identify what the most important parts of a project are, in order to give it structure. However, it is also mentioned that these parts are usually the most important because they are the hardest to change, so an architect's job should also include reducing the amount of these parts. Following the logic, by this definition, an architect's job is to reduce the amount of architecture.  The second proposed definition, which I also think I agree with, is that an architect's role is more like a guide's. His purpose is to help the team become better by using his expertise, and communicating with as much of the team as possible in order to remove their blocks. I think the word architect  still fulfills thi...
Post a Comment
Read more

Man on the Moon

The third episode of Moon Machines, titled  Navigation Computer  tells us all about the process of building the Apollo Guidance Computer. It amazes me the amount of work that goes into a project of this size, and it has always surprised me how many people don't care about space travel, or even the amount of people who, despite seeing all the people involved and all the hard work, still deny the moon landing ever happened.  I also found it really interesting how seemingly unorganized MIT's software team was while working on this project. This isn't meant as a jab at them, but the fact that one of today's most prestigious institutions didn't have a well-defined plan speaks of how much project management and software development in general have evolved in such little time.  However, it's also funny to see how little things have changed in that regard, in the sense that even today, the amount of work that goes into developing software is grossly underestimated (even...
Post a Comment
Read more