|Writing A Plain English Compiler email@example.com (Gerry Rzeppa) (2014-11-04)|
|Re: Writing A Plain English Compiler Pidgeot18@verizon.net (=?UTF-8?Q?Joshua_Cranmer_=f0=9f=90=a7?=) (2014-11-05)|
|Re: Writing A Plain English Compiler firstname.lastname@example.org (George Neuner) (2014-11-07)|
|Re: matching tasks to languages, was Writing A Plain English Compiler email@example.com (Gene Wirchenko) (2014-11-10)|
|From:||Gene Wirchenko <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Date:||Mon, 10 Nov 2014 15:37:57 -0800|
|Organization:||A noiseless patient Spider|
|References:||14-11-004 14-11-005 14-11-012|
|Keywords:||syntax, design, OOP|
|Posted-Date:||11 Nov 2014 14:40:52 EST|
On Fri, 07 Nov 2014 16:23:06 -0500, George Neuner
>I frequently am amazed at the contortions Java programmers go through
>to solve problems within the restrictive OO model. IMO, "Design
>Patterns" was an admission that too many programmers couldn't use Java
>to solve routine programming problems.
I bounced off "Design Patterns" myself. It seemed that the
authors would rather do anything but simply instantiate an object.
I had a uni assignment that I tried to solve using OO. As I
worked my way around it, I realised that OO was not going to happen.
Oh, I could have done it, but the code would have been much longer and
quite difficult to validate/debug.
>[That's as much an indictment of the lack of CS education among
>programmers. Java - somewhat successfully - tried to pander to less
>educated programmers by making simple things simpler, but in doing so
>it made solving many real problems more complicated.]
I lost a few hours to this on another assignment, because ints
could not be unsigned.
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.