Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.
| Related articles |
|---|
| Writing A Plain English Compiler gerry.rzeppa@pobox.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 gneuner2@comcast.net (George Neuner) (2014-11-07) |
| Re: matching tasks to languages, was Writing A Plain English Compiler genew@telus.net (Gene Wirchenko) (2014-11-10) |
| From: | Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> |
| Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
| 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
<gneuner2@comcast.net> wrote:
[snip]
>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.
[snip]
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.