|Why context-free? email@example.com (2005-10-06)|
|Re: Why context-free? bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com (Robert A Duff) (2005-10-07)|
|Re: Why context-free? firstname.lastname@example.org (2005-10-08)|
|Re: Why context-free? email@example.com (2005-10-29)|
|Re: Why context-free? firstname.lastname@example.org (2005-11-01)|
|Designing vs. Implementing, Was: Why context-free? Juergen.Kahrs@vr-web.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Kahrs?=) (2005-11-01)|
|Re: Designing vs. Implementing, Was: Why context-free? email@example.com (2005-11-02)|
|Re: Designing vs. Implementing, Was: Why context-free? Juergen.Kahrs@vr-web.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Kahrs?=) (2005-11-04)|
|Date:||1 Nov 2005 21:45:46 -0500|
|References:||05-10-053 05-10-061 05-10-062 05-10-200 05-11-002|
Nick Maclaren wrote:
> and implementing libraries and run-time systems, my belief is that few
> language designers, compiler writers and operating system designers
> either understand the issues or even attempt to provide the facility
> to design and implement a decent third-party library or run-time
> It could be done, but it does involve a change in mind-set.
I have also observed this phenomenon so many times.
The change in mind-set that you are talking about is
the different perspective of a lib's user and its implementor.
The inside view and the outside view. Even skilled implementors
are usually unable to change their mind-set (temporarily).
How can we change this ? What do I have to tell a skilled
implementor to make him change his mind when his design is bad ?
Whenever I try to do this, I run the risk of beeing treated
as a "bean-counter who simply doesnt understand".
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.