From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fac41,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,4b06f8f15f01a568 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Loryn Jenkins Subject: Re: Which wastes more time? (Was Re: Software landmines (loops)) Date: 1998/09/06 Message-ID: <35F20C37.89A79442@s054.aone.net.au>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 388325147 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <6rfra4$rul$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35DBDD24.D003404D@calfp.co.uk> <6sbuod$fra$1@hirame.wwa.com> <6sebjr$b69$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6sff74$q0s@gurney.reilly.home> <6sh2j5$jnl$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35EC2E5A.16DB6CB1@bigfoot-.com> <6sjc0a$1lk$3@news.indigo.ie> <35EFB09E.15412933@s054.aone.net.au> <35f2bd98.40599408@news.erols.com> <35F06A58.F968BDE1@s054.aone.net.au> <35f48276.90997557@news.erols.com> <35F0C3C9.D1E56FF3@s054.aone.net.au> <6srh67$sj5$1@hirame.wwa.com> <35F1C0B9.8A50CEB0@s054.aone.net.au> <6ssmjd$h0l$1@hirame.wwa.com> X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: news.mel.aone.net.au 905055327 12882 203.12.186.26 (6 Sep 1998 04:15:27 GMT) Organization: TekRite Pty Ltd Mime-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: loryn@acm.org NNTP-Posting-Date: 6 Sep 1998 04:15:27 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-09-06T04:15:27+00:00 List-Id: > >As far as I'm concerned, this flouts basic classification theory. As far > >as I'm concerned, this is *wrong*. (How can you claim to be programming > >for reuse, as Meyer so eloquently points out as a fundamental goal, and > >model things so rigidly? So incorrectly?) > > With respect, I think you have our roles reversed. Your position is the > rigid one, since you are insisting on there being only one solution to this > problem. I, on the other hand, am suggesting that there are circumstances > where other models (such as Meyers) may be valid. Sorry. I used general person "you" here. "You" might like to read it as "one". Therefore: > >As far as I'm concerned, this flouts basic classification theory. As far > >as I'm concerned, this is *wrong*. (How can one claim to be programming > >for reuse, as Meyer so eloquently points out as a fundamental goal, and > >model things so rigidly? So incorrectly?) > Writing a book is one of the hardest things a human can do. It is harder > than writing software, believe me. Writing a book of *significance* (for > which OOSC2 certainly qualifies) is even harder. Yes, I agree with this. So many points Bertrand makes are so valid. Thus the (minor) imperfections stand out even more. > So I am not going to > complain too loudly about an imperfect example. I am more likely to > complain about his rather flippant criticism of Somerfield; which I think > detracts from the credibility of the work. Perhaps, perhaps not. It is clearly an example of inheritance "done wrong". > Be that as it may, the example in question is not incorrect as it stands. > It's just not correct in all, or even most, contexts. Hmm. True. (That I've already granted previously, I believe.) Perhaps you may agree with me if a took a little weaker position, and claim that Meyer would have been better off choosing an unambiguously correct example. (And provided evidence of the context that makes is unambiguously correct. After all, if he dropped the Somerfield criticism, he'd certainly have the page count for it.) By the way, can you conceive of a situation in which it would be incorrect to model a role of some class using the Role Pattern? (Just wondering, because whenever I come across a situation like this, I reflexively reach for this 'tool'.) Loryn Jenkins