On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 07:58:01PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote: > On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 21:53:26 -0500 > Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Seriously, though, OO languages, being born of academia, were designed > > *not* to be quick-'n-dirty languages. They were designed with > > large projects in mind (the whole Software Design Life Cycle bit). > > Oh how I would love to find who came up with that particular catch phrase > and retort with my 10.5's in the posterior of said person. > > > If you want a (IMHO) good mix between QnD and OO, try Python. It > > is totally comfortable with procedural coding and OO coding. > > Ohhhh yeah. To me coding is organic. I know what I want the program to > do, I dunno how to get there. Actually doing helps me think and see where to > go. Ya get this working, then you branch out and do this. In the process > this doesn't work so you tweak it a little. The whole notion of designing the > program before you program it seems odd because programming is designing IMHO. > Here's a suggestion to give your programmmer's view of design the appearance of academic respectibility.
Doing design requires a language in which to record the results of your thinking (design work). That language can't be English, or any other _natural_ language, because such languages are lacking in the kind of rigor that design needs. C is a language which has sufficient rigor to handle recording a design. It can handle recording a partial design that is a work in progress. Coding in C before you have a complete design is _good_. It allows you to keep your thinking straight in a way that recording your design in a natural language would never do. And, in some cases, like the present one, appearances are good. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
