On Fri, May 21, 1999 at 08:26:00AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>
> I think a good object-oriented design can be easier to follow too.
> In circumstances where there is naturally some use for inheritance
> it is very useful indeed. I don't see any natural inheritance in
> managing packages, though
On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 01:20:20AM -0700, Aaron Van Couwenberghe wrote:
>
> Argo-UML. It's a UML design tool, designed to export Java; however, its
> nature makes it useful for any (distributed or otherwise) OO design project.
>
> I don't have a URL with me.
>
http://www.ics.uci.edu/pub/arch/uml
And thus spake Daniel James Patterson, on Fri, May 21, 1999 at 09:30:31AM +1000:
> On Fri, May 21, 1999 at 08:26:00AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> >
> > Besides, any advantage in a nice OO design is lost by implementing it in
> > C++!
> >
>
> There is no need to do it in C++. My whole point
On Fri, May 21, 1999 at 08:26:00AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>
> Besides, any advantage in a nice OO design is lost by implementing it in C++!
>
There is no need to do it in C++. My whole point is that I think an OO
methodology would work well in this case simply due to the maintainability
f
On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 10:09:34PM +0200, Marek Habersack wrote:
> Now you've proven it. You're a fanatic. And you offend people. Thanks.
there's no excuse for personal attacks. if you have a point to make,
then make it but don't stoop to ad hominem attacks.
i think i'll just ignore the rest of t
On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 08:45:09PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> On Fri, May 21, 1999 at 12:27:32AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
>
> > C++ may be OO, but it's not very good OOand it tends to compile
> > into code which is both bloated and slow.
> >
> > dpkg is already far too slow on old hard
On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 01:02:00PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I don't see anything in the Debian packaging system which fits
> > OO very well at all. We have just one type of package; there are no
> > special sub-types, for example.
>
> Then you're
On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 09:27:10PM +1000, Daniel James Patterson wrote:
> On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 09:14:26PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > How about "it's complete overkill"?
>
> I don't think so. Yes you can write maintainable code with plain C,
> but with the number of developers moving in a
On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 02:50:38AM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> I think an interesting approach would be to use CORBA. Make dpkg into
> a networkable server for polymorphic package objects! G'wan, I dare
> ya! :-)
Wowch! Nothing against CORBA, I love it, but if I think about the overhead.
I rec
* Marcus Brinkmann said:
> > dpkg is already far too slow on old hardware...hell, it's too slow on
> > a P200 with 200MB of RAM, now that the status and available files have
> > over 3300 packages detailed in them.
>
> Yeah, it's slow, and it's written in C.
Linux is slow. It's written in C. Yeah
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 08:25:17PM +1000, Daniel James Patterson wrote:
> > On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 02:50:38AM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> > > I think an interesting approach would be to use CORBA. Make dpkg into
> > > a networkable server for polymo
On Fri, May 21, 1999 at 12:27:32AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
>
> C++ may be OO, but it's not very good OOand it tends to compile into
> code which is both bloated and slow.
>
> dpkg is already far too slow on old hardware...hell, it's too slow on
> a P200 with 200MB of RAM, now that the sta
On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 09:27:10PM +1000, Daniel James Patterson wrote:
> Besides, as I said, at this stage, do the analysis, not the coding. It can
> always be scrapped if it looks like it would be pointless, but I'd like to
> see some non-emotive reasons not to even _consider_ it.
here's a non-
On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 08:54:45PM +1000, Daniel James Patterson wrote:
> On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 08:44:39PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Speaking of baser instincts, Rationale Rose isn't free software, is it?
> >
> > Are there any nice (or even not-nice) OO design tools that are?
> >
>
> No
On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 09:14:26PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> How about "it's complete overkill"?
I don't think so. Yes you can write maintainable code with plain C,
but with the number of developers moving in and out of Debian, I think
that a decent OO approach for core software could make i
On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 08:25:17PM +1000, Daniel James Patterson wrote:
> On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 02:50:38AM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> >
> > I think an interesting approach would be to use CORBA. Make dpkg into
> > a networkable server for polymorphic package objects! G'wan, I dare
> > ya! :
On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 08:44:39PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Speaking of baser instincts, Rationale Rose isn't free software, is it?
>
> Are there any nice (or even not-nice) OO design tools that are?
>
No unfortunatley it isnt. There is a solaris version, which is a bad port
of the win32 v
On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 08:25:17PM +1000, Daniel James Patterson wrote:
> On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 02:50:38AM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> There are a few OO tools (I'm thinking Rational Rose
> in particular) that can do code generation from UML work, which could mean
> that we could decide on a des
On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 02:50:38AM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
>
> I think an interesting approach would be to use CORBA. Make dpkg into
> a networkable server for polymorphic package objects! G'wan, I dare
> ya! :-)
I don't see why not.
Software is becomming more and more complex, people are
Aaron Van Couwenberghe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have grown increasingly aware of FUD of this type about C++ and OO
> languages. OO is designed to *increase* interoperability, flexibility, and
> extensibility -- definately not the other way around.
OO isn't limited to C++, and C++ isn't lim
20 matches
Mail list logo
