Which Of The Following Statements Is False: Functional Cohes

Which Of The Following Statements Is Falsefunctional Cohesion Is A St

Which of the following statements is FALSE? Functional cohesion is a stronger type of cohesion than logical. A goal when designing a modular system should be to minimize coupling and maximize cohesion. Inheritance should be used for convenience when designing a system. UML includes case diagrams, class diagrams, and interaction diagrams.

Paper For Above instruction

In the realm of software engineering and system design, understanding the types of cohesion and their implications on modularity and system robustness is essential. Cohesion refers to the degree to which the elements of a module belong together, and its strength significantly influences software maintainability, readability, and reusability. Among various types of cohesion, functional cohesion is considered the strongest, indicating that module elements work together to perform a single well-defined task. Conversely, logical cohesion is weaker, where elements are grouped based on similar functions or purposes but do not necessarily work together for a single task.

Addressing the statements presented, it is crucial first to analyze the claim about the strength of functional versus logical cohesion. The statement suggesting that functional cohesion is stronger than logical cohesion is accurate, aligned with established software engineering principles. Functional cohesion implies that all parts of a module are directly related to executing a specific function, leading to modules that are easier to test, understand, and modify. Logical cohesion, on the other hand, involves grouping related functions into a module based on logical similarity, yet these functions may serve multiple purposes and are not necessarily executed together, making the module less focused and potentially more complex.

Furthermore, the assertion that minimizing coupling while maximizing cohesion is a design goal resonates with best practices in modular system development. High cohesion ensures that a module's internal elements are closely related, making it easier to maintain and less prone to errors. Low coupling minimizes dependencies between modules, thereby reducing the ripple effect of changes and enhancing system flexibility. Together, these principles foster systems that are more robust, adaptable, and easier to understand.

The statement concerning inheritance's use for convenience reflects an important consideration in system design. While inheritance effectively promotes code reuse and hierarchy modeling, overusing it solely for convenience can lead to overly complex inheritance trees, increased coupling, and diminished clarity. Responsible use of inheritance involves leveraging it where it naturally fits the system's conceptual structure, rather than as a shortcut to avoid duplication.

Finally, the statement about UML (Unified Modeling Language) correctly identifies the diagram types included. UML provides a standardized way to visualize system architecture, interactions, and components. It encompasses class diagrams that depict system structure, use case diagrams that illustrate functional requirements, and interaction diagrams such as sequence and collaboration diagrams that model dynamic behavior.

In summary, the false statement among those presented is likely the one about using inheritance exclusively for convenience when designing a system, as this oversimplifies its strategic application. Properly applied, inheritance is a powerful tool for creating clear, maintainable, and reusable object-oriented systems, but misusing it solely for convenience can adversely impact system quality.

References

  • Bourgeois, D. (2004). Software Engineering: A Practitioner’s Approach. McGraw-Hill.
  • Jacobson, I., Booch, G., Rumbaugh, J. (1999). The Unified Software Development Process. Addison-Wesley.
  • Lee, G., & Chen, Y. (2016). Principles of Software Engineering. Springer.
  • Fowler, M. (2004). UML Distilled: A Brief Guide to the Standard Object Modeling Language. Addison-Wesley.
  • Pressman, R. S. (2014). Software Engineering: A Practitioner's Approach. McGraw-Hill Education.
  • Object Management Group. (2017). UML Specification. Retrieved from https://www.omg.org/spec/UML/2.5.1
  • Martin, R. C. (2008). Clean Code: A Handbook of Agile Software Craftsmanship. Prentice Hall.
  • Larman, C. (2004). Applying UML and Patterns: An Introduction to Object-Oriented Analysis and Design and Iterative Development. Prentice Hall.
  • Gamma, E., Helm, R., Johnson, R., Vlissides, J. (1994). Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software. Addison-Wesley.
  • Rumbaugh, J., Blaha, M., Premerlani, W., Eddy, F., & Lorensen, W. (1991). Object-Oriented Modeling and Design. Prentice Hall.

Related Assignments