Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Programming Languages and XP (was Re: [OT] Re: [XP] Extreme Testing!)

Expand Messages
  • J. B. Rainsberger
    ... I can t resist, either. Both statements can easily be simultaneously true. Smalltalk designs are (generally) simpler than C++ designs, and it s possible to
    Message 1 of 111 , Jul 1, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Manuel Klimek wrote:

      > Ron,
      >
      > sorry, I just can't resist:
      >
      > On 7/1/07, Ron Jeffries <ronjeffries@...
      > <mailto:ronjeffries%40xprogramming.com>> wrote:
      > > > Simple Design
      > >
      > > Designs in e.g. Smalltalk are much simpler than in e.g. C++
      >
      > I always thought the design was done by the developer, not by
      > the language ;-) I think it's very easy (at least for me) to come up
      > with a bad design in /any/ language. Name one, and I will show
      > you ...

      I can't resist, either. Both statements can easily be simultaneously true.

      Smalltalk designs are (generally) simpler than C++ designs, and it's
      possible to design badly in Smalltalk.

      So?
      --
      J. B. (Joe) Rainsberger :: http://www.jbrains.ca
      Your guide to software craftsmanship
      JUnit Recipes: Practical Methods for Programmer Testing
      2005 Gordon Pask Award for contribution Agile Software Practice
    • J. B. Rainsberger
      ... I understand your point. I was partly acting as the devil s advocate and partly asking a genuine question about Smalltalk as a Smalltalk novice. Take care.
      Message 111 of 111 , Jul 6, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Ron Jeffries wrote:

        > Hello, J.. On Thursday, July 5, 2007, at 11:44:11 PM, you wrote:
        >
        > > So is the interface an important element of the design? In Smalltalk,
        > > the interface is implicit, because we can only deduce it by noticing the
        > > same method signatures in multiple classes and looking for the client
        > > code that uses the corresponding classes polymorphically (not knowing a
        > > more proper way to express that idea). Does Smalltalk then not obscure
        > > intent in this area? If not, why not?
        >
        > It can. There are implementations of interface-like things if you
        > want them. And other ways of expressing the thing.
        >
        > On the other hand, polymorphism without all that rigidity has value
        > too.
        >
        > But my only point was that the two designs, as reflected in the
        > code, are different. I'm not making a claim as to which one is
        > better, only that the language does make a difference to the design,
        > at least as implemented.

        I understand your point. I was partly acting as the devil's advocate and
        partly asking a genuine question about Smalltalk as a Smalltalk novice.

        Take care.
        --
        J. B. (Joe) Rainsberger :: http://www.jbrains.ca
        Your guide to software craftsmanship
        JUnit Recipes: Practical Methods for Programmer Testing
        2005 Gordon Pask Award for contribution Agile Software Practice
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.