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

Re: [XP] XP and .NET popularity

Expand Messages
  • Ron Jeffries
    ... I detect a serious bias here. I have received better support from Microsoft, in more forms, than for any other product I ve ever used. It does help to call
    Message 1 of 219 , Jan 1, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      On Wednesday, January 1, 2003, at 6:15:41 PM, cg@... wrote:

      > Ron Jeffries <ronjeffries@...> said:
      >>One would hope. I'd like to see a Microsoft-supported reasonable dynamic
      > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
      > contradiction in terms? ;-)

      I detect a serious bias here. I have received better support from Microsoft, in
      more forms, than for any other product I've ever used. It does help to call at 2
      AM, I admit.

      >>language.
      >>
      > Hey, .NET is this beautiful open platform, not? I'm quite sure that Microsoft
      > will just *love* to see a free market of languages sprouting up around it. Why
      > would it need to be a Microsoft language?

      Because probably the bulk of the small computer software in the universe is
      written using Microsoft products on Microsoft platforms, and when they get
      behind an idea it has a better chance of thriving than if it's just hangers on.

      They have great power and great ability, and I'd like them to get behind more
      good ideas.

      There are many non-Microsoft languages in .NET. That's part of what makes it so
      interesting. It's far less insular than Java in that regard, I believe.

      Ron Jeffries
      www.XProgramming.com
      Discontinue reading if rash, irritation, redness, or swelling develops.
      Especially irritation.
    • Daniel Sheppard
      ... If the language isn t doing type-checking on you, you wouldn t have had to refactor that test to make it compile. You would have run your tests and see
      Message 219 of 219 , Jan 5, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        > > Well, you had a test that did "new Car(owner)" and asserted
        > that this object
        > > returned what you expected from toString() before you
        > refactored. So you break
        > > your unit test.
        >
        > Yes, that test is in the unit tests for Car. When refactoring
        > Car, I of
        > course changed that one to take an OwnerList, rather than an
        > owner. The
        > problem is with someone who *calls* that method. I'm supposing that I
        > forgot about refactoring DmvImporter as well.

        If the language isn't doing type-checking on you, you wouldn't have had to refactor that test to make it compile.

        You would have run your tests and see that it fails, and your first thought at that point should not be "how do I change the test to make it work?" but "how do I change the code to make it work?". This would have led you to change your toString() method operates correctly regardless of it being an owner or an ownerlist. If you don't have control of all the calling code, or you can't trust yourself to change it all, this is the only solution you should be entertaining.

        Daniel Sheppard

        daniels at pronto.com.au
        #####################################################################################
        This email has been scanned by MailMarshal, an email content filter.
        #####################################################################################
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.