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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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
    • 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.