[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Y Store /Closures

On Fri, 2003-02-28 at 08:57, Sundar Narasimhan wrote:
>    What is the minimal piece of Java or XML or Python that shows the same
>    kind of executable step-by-step definition of a task as I gave in my post?
> Avi: You've gone from "cannot be done" to "cannot be done in as many
> lines of code". I won't take that bait, Sorry. Because the lines of
> code you are focussed on reducing is not what I (and other enterprise
> developers are focused on -- supporting the back button in the manner
> you describe is less than 5% of my use-cases).

You know, as a huge Zope lover, let me chip in my 2 cents.  I think you
take another look at Avi's approach, and think about it more deeply
before dismissing it so quickly.

I can (and do) write object-oriented programs in C, but they're totally
different beast than the ones I write in C++.  Similarly, I can (and do)
write functional programs in C, but they're *so much uglier* than the
ones I write in Scheme.  Avi is talking about a conceptual jump as big
as the jump from 'goto' to structured programming, or the jump from
structured programming to object-oriented programming.  It's not
something you can grok without hands-on experience.

Now, what he's talking about might not (ultimately) offer you any
benefits.  Objects didn't help everyone, either.  But object-orientation
wasn't just a way for C programmers to save a few "lines of code"; it
was a whole new way of thinking about designs.

I believe that (programming) languages affect the way we think, and that
design changes in programming languages can produce *radically* better
software.  I may occasionally pick on language designers for having poor
FFIs, weird syntax, or intrinsically alien semantics, but that's because
I *want* the cool languages to succeed, because many of them are

Language designers rescue us from the Turing Tarpit, where everything is
possible, but nothing is easy or elegant.