2009/9/14 frederic :
>
> Sorry Anselm, I forgot to thank you for your quick answer.
>
>>> 1. I designed a software to automate testing of the boxes that we
>>> build. The main language used is Python (I guess it's hard to avoid OO
>>> when using python). Basically the design is such that I have
Anselm R Garbe wrote:
I don't miss closures. You got the static keyword to avoid polluting
the global namespace.
Kind regards,
Anselm
U think it may be genetic? :)
Byzantine libraries, rich class hierarchies, clever closures, maybe are
for members of the species /programmator domesticus/.
T
2009/9/15 Jack Woehr :
> U think it may be genetic? :)
Ah, thanks for proving that Uriel isn't quite in the bottom of the
chain, atleast he seems to know how to spell words instead of
replacing really short words with one letter like a complete idiot. :)
--
Daniel
And at least I don't put *fucking html* in my emails.
Peace
uriel
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 6:23 PM, Daniel Bainton wrote:
> 2009/9/15 Jack Woehr :
>> U think it may be genetic? :)
>
> Ah, thanks for proving that Uriel isn't quite in the bottom of the
> chain, atleast he seems to know how to spel
Daniel Bainton wrote:
2009/9/15 Jack Woehr :
U think it may be genetic? :)
Ah, thanks for proving that Uriel isn't quite in the bottom of the
chain, atleast he seems to know how to spell words instead of
replacing really short words with one letter like a complete idiot. :)
--
Daniel
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 02:35:46AM +0200, Uriel wrote:
[snip]
> >
> > Some examples:
> >
> > 1. I designed a software to automate testing of the boxes that we
> > build. The main language used is Python (I guess it's hard to avoid OO
> > when using python). Basically the design is such that I
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 07:15:07PM +0100, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
[snip]
> > 2. A colleague of mine needed to design a packet generation engines for
> > our box. He used OO concepts in CC by using techniques such as VTABLE,
> > defines for methods, classes, etc:
> >
> > /**
> > * Macros for de
[2009-09-13 23:34] Amit Uttamchandani
>
> Just curious as to the arguments against OO programming. All the classes
> I have taken in uni always trumpet OO.
The problem of discussions with most people about OO is that they
simply have this different POV. They have their many-thousand SLOC
large
In big and complex programs OO makes even less sense, and causes even
more harm, the difference is that in the mist of so much complexity it
is less obvious that OO is totally worthless, when in the case of a
really simple program, it becomes painful self evident that 90% of the
complexity comes fr
On Tue 15 Sep 2009 at 12:33:22 PDT markus schnalke wrote:
You have the separation in the operation system then. Single
independent programs take the place of classes. You can combine them to
larger programs.
Interesting. I've been accustomed to looking at a dataflow diagram and
seeing the bubb
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 09:33:22PM +0200, markus schnalke wrote:
> [2009-09-13 23:34] Amit Uttamchandani
> >
> > Just curious as to the arguments against OO programming. All the classes
> > I have taken in uni always trumpet OO.
>
> The problem of discussions with most people about OO is that t
On Tue 15 Sep 2009 at 13:51:44 PDT Amit Uttamchandani wrote:
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 09:33:22PM +0200, markus schnalke wrote:
You have the separation in the operation system then. Single
independent programs take the place of classes. You can combine them
to larger programs.
Again I agree her
Anselm R Garbe wrote:
I don't miss closures. You got the static keyword to avoid polluting
the global namespace.
Kind regards,
Anselm
U think it may be genetic? :)
Byzantine libraries, rich class hierarchies, clever closures, maybe are
for members of the species /programmator domesticus/.
frederic wrote:
Anselm R Garbe wrote:
I don't miss closures. You got the static keyword to avoid polluting
the global namespace.
Kind regards,
Anselm
U think it may be genetic? :)
Byzantine libraries, rich class hierarchies, clever closures, maybe
are for members of the species /programmator
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 11:42 PM, Charlie Kester wrote:
> On Tue 15 Sep 2009 at 13:51:44 PDT Amit Uttamchandani wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 09:33:22PM +0200, markus schnalke wrote:
>>>
>>> You have the separation in the operation system then. Single
>>> independent programs take the place
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 11:42 PM, Charlie Kester wrote:
> On Tue 15 Sep 2009 at 13:51:44 PDT Amit Uttamchandani wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 09:33:22PM +0200, markus schnalke wrote:
>>>
>>> You have the separation in the operation system then. Single
>>> independent programs take the place
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 12:03 AM, frederic wrote:
> I'm pretty sure that if C featured closures, Anselm would cleverly use them
> and
> make an even more simple, customizable and elegant dwm.
I'm pretty sure that if C featured closures, Anselm and many others
would promptly and cleverly hang them
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 3:40 AM, Jack Woehr wrote:
> Look at the great ideologues of the recent decades. Richard M. Stallman,
> lop, lop, lop. Theo DeRaadt,
> lop, lop, lop. I love and respect these guys but when you bow down to an
> absolute ideology, you
> have to sacrifice a lot. The strength o
Uriel wrote:
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 3:40 AM, Jack Woehr wrote:
Look at the great ideologues of the recent decades.
It was not until I beat him up for months about it that he started to
change his ways.
Ha!
He is actually
*listenting* and he proceeds to actually test the ideas that o
19 matches
Mail list logo
