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

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

Expand Messages
  • Manuel Klimek
    Or smalltalk, for that matter. haskell, anyone? ;-) ... -- http://klimek.box4.net [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Message 1 of 111 , Jul 1, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Or smalltalk, for that matter. haskell, anyone? ;-)

      On 7/1/07, Ilja Preuss <it@...> wrote:
      >
      > 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@...<ronjeffries%40xprogramming.com>>
      > 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
      > >>
      > >>
      > >
      > >
      > >
      >
      >
      >



      --
      http://klimek.box4.net


      [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.