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

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

Expand Messages
  • Lior Friedman
    ... Just for the record youcan have the same 2 element design in C++ as well. I m not sure that you willwant to go there, but you can. The point is that
    Message 1 of 111 , Jul 1, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Ron said:



      >Suppose in our design we wish to have two classessupporting some
      >small set of methods, doX, doY, doZ. Suppose those two classes don't
      >want to have a common superclass.

      >In Smalltalk we would just have the two classes, and they would each
      >implement the methods in question.

      >In Java and C# we would have two classes and an interface.

      >Thus the Smalltalk design(!) includes only two elements, and the
      >Java / C# design(!) includes three elements.





      Just for the record youcan have the same 2 element design in C++ as well.

      I'm not sure that you willwant to go there, but you can.



      The point is that comparingprogramming languages in this manner is like arguing which spoken language isbetter based on counting the syllable it takes to pronounce a given meaning.

      I believe that there isno superior spoken/coding language, they are just different.



      Lior Friedman





      ---------------------------------
      Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search that gives answers, not web links.

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • 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.