Replying to Jason & H. S. Lahman
In article
<4a331365-d48a-490e-b27f-525a874b7512@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
"jason.cipriani@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
" <jason.cipriani@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> I am not sure I understand what you are asking...
>
> On Mar 26, 3:01 am, problems@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> > I think I read sometime ago that [perhaps unix/C] designed a set/s of
> > library/s, intended to be a minimal but sufficient set to do 'any'
task ?
> > But that it is not widely accepted.
>
> Are you thinking of something specific? Both the C standard runtime
> library and the Java runtime / component library (among many, many
> others -- just using those two as an example, since you mentioned them
> both) could be described as sufficient to do 'any' task.
>
> > I imagine programming then being mostly a matter of
> > selecting procedures/function out of the library ?
> >
> > So you've moved the problem to navigating the library ?
>
> Well, I mean, "navigating" the C and Java runtime libraries would
> consist of "reading the do***entation"... unless you mean something
> else?
>
No ! you don't read the dictionary; you navigate it ?
> > Which would be heirarchically arranged ?
> > eg. > strings > insert > args-description .... ?
>
> The Java API do***entation is fairly well organized...
>
> > Perhaps java-programmers do this by 'browsing' the methods of cl*****
?
>
> I think they do this by reading the do***entation. If you mean
> browsing methods of cl***** programmatically, this is part of a
> feature called "reflection" -- some languages have this feature (such
> as Java), others do not... but I don't see how reflection helps you
> out here (what are you trying to do?).
>
Increase productivety, by AVOIDING dumb redundant reading.
> > Does it work ?
>
> Depends on how good they are at reading. :-)
>
That's exactly what I'm trying to AVOID.
Think 2008 productive data-overload killer: you recognise
[not read] a token which by learned reflex directs you to a
1 of 8 selection selection, thereby reducing your search-space by
87% in 300 mSec ...etc. Like realtime battle/traffic navigation.
Not 1950s: sharpen your pencil, light up your cigarette and
get comfortable to 'read'.
============ replying to H. S. Lahman
> > So you've moved the problem to navigating the library ?
> >
> > Which would be heirarchically arranged ?
> > eg. > strings > insert > args-description .... ?
>
H. S. Lahman wrote:-
> Yes -- if you are programming in a procedural or functional language
> this sort of functional decomposition was the basis of Structured
> Development and it is the most intuitive way to build complex modules
> from atomic functional elements like language operators or library
> functions.
>
The 'to decompose or not' decision has already been taken.
I'm talking about TimeAndMotion of increasing productivety doing it.
> > Perhaps java-programmers do this by 'browsing' the methods of cl*****
?
>
> Not really. OO development uses a completely different paradigm for
> developing program structure. In fact, one can argue that the main goal
> of OO development is to avoid the hierarchical dependencies usually
> associated with functional decomposition. Instead, the OO paradigm
> creates software elements by direct abstraction of problem space
> entities and those elements collaborate on a peer-to-peer basis to solve
> the problem in hand. The browsers provided by the language IDEs are
> primarily a tool for navigating the program structure once it has been
> defined.
>
So what is the theoretical basis of these IDE browsers ?
Anything can be designed haphazardly or more formally/theoretically.
Since selecting the procedure/function is so im****tant I'd expect
that there are studies/theories on how to arrange/structure the
selection mechanism. Software development needs move
away from being an art towards being more formal.
After you've seen fifty different library-sets, all differently arranged,
with different elements, don't you ever think "what would be a
canonical arrangement" ? Some standard ?
I use and sometimes modify/extend the ETH-Oberon OS/language
and when I look at the sources it seems that every 'application' has
eg. written it's own eg. Hex2Decimal routine because it was too
much trouble to use a single standard common routine.
== Chris Glur.
|
