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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fac41,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,3d3f20d31be1c33a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public From: doylep@ecf.toronto.edu (Patrick Doyle) Subject: Re: Interface/Implementation (was Re: Design by Contract) Date: 1997/09/10 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 271163147 X-Nntp-Posting-Host: skule.ecf Sender: news@ecf.toronto.edu (News Administrator) References: Organization: University of Toronto, Engineering Computing Facility Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel Date: 1997-09-10T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article , Matthew Heaney wrote: > >In article , doylep@ecf.toronto.edu (Patrick >Doyle) wrote: > >>I don't think that's the issue. If Ada people generally use a technique >>which is superior to what I do, I'd like to find a way to do it using >>Eiffel. I don't care what people to in practice. I'm here to learn >>and to hone my own skills. > >Don't fight the language. Something that's naturally expressable in one >language may be quite klunky in another. Give me some credit. :-) I'm not going to force myself to use some methodology which makes my life harder. >You have to consider the features of a language in their _totality_. Just >because a certain thing may be easier to do in language A than in B, >doesn't mean B is a lesser language than A because of it. B may have many >other benefits not present in A, and to try to bend B to get that certain >thing, you can acually make B worse. > >A designer or systems theorist will tell you to think holistically, and to >not be such a reductionist. Woah, now you're reading more into my comment than I put there. Plus, you've move into name-calling. I think this has gone far enough. I just meant that I'm trying to learn methodologies from other people. If those people use different tools, then I'd like to know how to do what they do with my tools. Clearly, if this turns out to be so difficult as to offer no advantage, I won't end up doing it. But I'm still allowed to ask the question. >If you really want to hone your skills, then immerse yourself in a language >that uses a completely different paradigm. Spend a few weeks or months >programming in a functional language or a logic language. Great idea. Then, presumably, I'd take what I'd learned and apply whatever I could to my old paradigm. If it's not helpful, of course I'd stop. And in the mean time, I can still ask others in this newsgroup about their methodologies and try to learn from them. >And you should care what others do "in practice." You don't live on an >island, and so you have to work with other programmers. Accept what the >standard practice is, because that will make it easier for others to read >and understand your code. If you're doing a lot of idiomatic stuff, you're >going to be ostracised, even if your intentions are good. I think this stuff is pretty self-evident. All I was trying to say is that this discussion is not merely about what is done in practice, because some of us would like to learn new things. Clearly, I was a bit overzealous when I said I don't care what others do in practice. :-) -PD -- -- Patrick Doyle doylep@ecf.utoronto.ca