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

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

Expand Messages
  • Dave Nicolette
    ... implementation ... design, that ... Okay, I ll buy that. Dave
    Message 1 of 111 , Jul 1 7:14 PM
      --- In extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com, "J. B. Rainsberger"
      <jbrains762@...> wrote:
      >
      > Dave Nicolette wrote:
      >
      > > > > Are you describing design as such or language-dependent
      implementation
      > > > > details?
      > > >
      > > > If the language forces me to write more code for the same
      design, that
      > > > matters, no?
      > >
      > > It matters, yes.
      > >
      > > I just don't think it's a design question per se.
      >
      > I understand, but the simplicity of a design can't exist in a vacuum:
      > without being implemented, it doesn't much matter. I was including the
      > design's expression in the design. A perfect circle is nice, but no-one
      > can ever draw one, so in that sense, it doesn't matter how perfect a
      > circle is.
      > --

      Okay, I'll buy that.

      Dave
    • 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 8:48 PM
        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.