=== on 17 Sep 2014, 11:26:26 Freddy Mallet wrote:
@Ann, I discussed this point with @Linda because I guess there is a misunderstanding here -> this rule states the following thing : "doing some functional programming is a bad thing only object oriented programming makes sense", which is obviously highly controversial :). I would simply drop this rule.  

=== on 21 Oct 2014, 15:05:35 Linda Martin wrote:
\[~ann.campbell.2] Do you think SQALE characteristic could be changed for "Maintainability" ? I'm not so sure as I'm not 100% confortable with those characteristics.

=== on 21 Oct 2014, 19:41:01 Ann Campbell wrote:
\[~linda.martin] I would not change the SQALE function. When given a choice, we go with the worse-possible alternative, which in this case is that you're writing untestable code.


Of course, that takes me back to the original description. I think it would be worthwhile to include the three reasons I listed initially in the description.

=== on 22 Oct 2014, 12:58:17 Linda Martin wrote:
\[~ann.campbell.2] I am good with including back the 3 reasons as long as it remains in the context of OOP.

=== on 22 Oct 2014, 13:31:24 Ann Campbell wrote:
See what you think [~linda.martin]

=== on 23 Oct 2014, 07:30:15 Linda Martin wrote:
\[~ann.campbell.2] Perfect!