David Freeman david_freeman@rocketmail.com writes:
we think a has the facilities to do x y and y b inherites the functionaility from a and adds p q r and s OO is better for modern software.
Some people may, but I see a process as a composition of processes carried out by actors. Imperative-OO is just so much overhead to this viewpoint.
Anyway, imperative-OO still has "do this, do that" at its core...
Read UML in a nutshell and get back to me, and also phone the poor sod and give him the Job, he sounds like he may know what he's talking about. Formally proving programs, nice :o)
Sure, he'd be good for a job, but not a job where we needed someone to design applications to an already-defined specification and deal with a large backlog of data to be processed. Horse for courses ;-) At the very least, he was off-beam with his pitch.
Good code is code which meets the needs of the application and doesn't crash. [...]
Being written is a prerequisite for these.
No its not, being written well is the prerequisite.
How is being written not a prereq for being written well? ;-)
You obviously aren't in the camp of designing bugs out of programs.
Yes, but how can you design without prototypes? Show me someone who can make things without ever experimenting and I'll show you some angels on the head of a pin...
I'm no expert in this sort fo stuff, but I do know that the whole relational Paradigm and the OO paradigm are very closely tide in,
ARF!
--- MJ Ray markj@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk wrote:
David Freeman david_freeman@rocketmail.com writes:
we think a has the facilities to do x y and y b inherites the functionaility from a and adds p q r and s OO is better for modern software.
Some people may, but I see a process as a composition of processes carried out by actors. Imperative-OO is just so much overhead to this viewpoint.
Hmmm, we could augue this for ages. OO doesn't have as much Overhead as you might think. Have a look at the linux kernel and you will see it is infact semi oo in its design.
Anyway, imperative-OO still has "do this, do that" at its core...
Not if used properly. its more on event x do y etc...
Read UML in a nutshell and get back to me, and also phone the poor
sod
and give him the Job, he sounds like he may know what he's talking about. Formally proving programs, nice :o)
Sure, he'd be good for a job, but not a job where we needed someone to design applications to an already-defined specification and deal with a large backlog of data to be processed. Horse for courses ;-) At the very least, he was off-beam with his pitch.
True. I wasn't there so can't comment much. but how was the program spec defined?
Good code is code which meets the needs of the application
and
doesn't crash. [...]
Being written is a prerequisite for these.
No its not, being written well is the prerequisite.
How is being written not a prereq for being written well? ;-)
You obviously aren't in the camp of designing bugs out of programs.
Yes, but how can you design without prototypes? Show me someone who can make things without ever experimenting and I'll show you some angels on the head of a pin...
prototypes? you design it in pseudo code, this then becomes your comments as you write code round them. All languages(well most) have the same basic principles of sequence selection and interation. Read Code Complete by Steve Mcconnell.
I'm no expert in this sort fo stuff, but I do know that the whole relational Paradigm and the OO paradigm are very closely tide in,
ARF!
ARF! to you as well :o)
Thanks
D
-- MJR
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
-
David Freeman -
MJ Ray