|How should size of program grow with size of problem? email@example.com (Julian V. Noble) (1993-10-28)|
|Re: How should size of program grow with size of problem? firstname.lastname@example.org (1993-11-03)|
|reusing ADT, not implementation (was Re: How should size ... ?) email@example.com (1993-11-04)|
|Re: reusing ADT, not implementation (was Re: How should size ... ?) firstname.lastname@example.org (1993-11-05)|
|From:||email@example.com (James Jones)|
|Organization:||Microware Systems Corp., Des Moines, Iowa|
|Date:||Thu, 4 Nov 1993 17:28:23 GMT|
firstname.lastname@example.org (Henry Spencer) writes:
>Indeed, there are a significant number of people who think that once you
>strip away the OOH (Object-Oriented Hype), being able to reuse
>*interfaces* is much more important than being able to reuse code.
Sounds like what Schwartz et al. (Dewar, perhaps?) did with SETL, which
would let you fine tune the implementation of particular instances of its
basic notions (set, relation, etc.) once you had the code working. The
canonical references are in POPL and CACM, I believe, but they've faded
from my memory.
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.