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

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

Expand Messages
  • Ilja Preuss
    Well, as they are smart people, and they may define their own way to work, they certainly would define their way to work to not include programming in C++...
    Message 1 of 111 , Jul 1, 2007
      Well, as they are smart people, and they may define their own way to
      work, they certainly would define their way to work to not include
      programming in C++... ;)

      Just kidding,

      Ilja

      Manuel Klimek wrote:
      > Ron,
      >
      > if you put me in a team of smart people who are striving to deliver
      > high quality software they take pride in and from whom I can learn a
      > lot, and if that team is appreciated by management and may define
      > their own way to work and the company lives a culture of honesty
      > than I will code in any language you want me to. It's one of the
      > least important things for me.
      >
      > Cheers,
      > Manuel
      >
      > On 7/1/07, Ron Jeffries <ronjeffries@...> wrote:
      >> I am inclined to dispute the last half of that sentence. But as for
      >> "better" it surely depends on what we're trying to do. That said, my
      >> personal preference would be to program in Smalltalk for anything
      >> big, and Ruby for anything small. I'd program in C++ if my children
      >> were being held hostage by evil-doers and that was the only way to
      >> get them back.
      >>
      >> All personal preferences, though.
      >>
      >> Ron Jeffries
      >> www.XProgramming.com
      >> Talent determines how fast you get good, not how good you get.
      >> -- Richard Gabriel
      >>
      >>
      >
      >
      >
    • 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
        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.