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

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

Expand Messages
  • Laurent Bossavit
    ... A quick note first, not directed at Ron particularly. When you ve tried languages like Erlang and Haskell, comparisons between Java, C# and Smalltalk start
    Message 1 of 111 , Jul 1, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Ron wrote:

      > 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.

      A quick note first, not directed at Ron particularly. When you've
      tried languages like Erlang and Haskell, comparisons between Java, C#
      and Smalltalk start to sound a little parochial.

      My intuition is that language and method are largely orthogonal, but
      that language and problem domain are not.

      Extreme Programming places a more explicit emphasis on abstraction
      (Once And Only Once), and therefore directs our attention strongly to
      the abstraction facilities of a language. Depending on method, you
      could be more sensitive to type safety, assertions and other
      "correctness by construction" facilities. To that extent the language
      used for a given part of a system can more or less congenial to XP.

      On the other hand, if you have strong reasons to pick, say, C++ over
      Java, I suspect that these reasons will be valid regardless of
      method; you will not rule out C++ specifically because you're using
      XP, whatever your preferences are.

      Laurent Bossavit
      laurent@...
    • 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.