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

Re: beyond java

In article <8s7sbf$7r5$1@epos.tesco.net>, "Jason Trenouth" 
<Jason.Trenouth@tesco.net> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Here's an article I wrote a while ago after working on a couple of CORBA 
> IDL
> compilers: one written in Java and one written in Dylan.
> 
>     http://www.fun-o.com/resources/beyond-java.phtml

Looks good, but I have a couple of comments.


I thought that you often needed to show a bit more context.  For 
example, in the add-node() example you should have shown code for when 
the argument type is not <IDL-argument>.

The "visitor" example was probably too sketchy for people who haven't 
already read GoF, and could perhaps have done with a reference.

It could also be nice to have a comment to the effect that "just as 
Stroustrup realized that most uses of #DEFINE in C programs represented 
a language deficiency, which he then attempted to correct in C++, many 
uses of GoF design patterns also represent language deficiencies which 
don't exist in Dylan (even though it was designed before GoF was 
written)".  Better put, of course ;-)

I said this in a recent job interview (for a Java/J2EE/EJB/ecommerce 
position) when asked "what do you think of Design Patterns" and still 
got offered the job :-)   (of course I also managed to correctly answer 
the question "Which pattern would be appropriate in situation XYZZY?" 
[observer])


The check-constraints() functions have three arguments, but the calls to 
it only give two arguments (they leave out the <IDL-expression>.


I'd be interested to know the relative speeds of your Dylan and Java IDL 
compilers.  Perhaps your readers would too.  Or do you want to leave 
them with the impression that Dylan programs are shorter and nicer than 
Java ones, but they're probably even slower than Java because otherwise 
the author would certainly have mentioned the speed advantage?

-- Bruce
References: