I would
refer people to "Language, Thought, and Reality: the
Collected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf" and to other
reading in general semantics. Language imposes a distinct
view of reality as well as a distinct representation of it. APL
imposes a vector concept related to both data and programs.
PL/I imposes an element-by-element iteration in support of
operations on aggregate operands. When engaged in writing
either you need to adopt the distinct view of the language.
Generally I avoid O-O methodology. One, we have never had
any other kind. Two, it restricts us from considering logically
equivalent alternatives. Moreover I'm not stuck in third
generation mode, ready and willing to rock and roll in fourth
generation. That means taking a different view of rules and
reuse with a goal of reducing not increasing complexity.
I don't want to make it harder for people to write source. I
want to make it easier. I want them to be able to get more
out from what they put in, thus minimizing what they have to
write.
If you want to impose a particular methodology like O-O, you
specify it. If you want to impose a particular methodology like
AOP (Aspect-Oriented Programming), you specify it. I'm not
here to dictate personal choice, only to provide a means of
implementing it. That means occurs through specification in a
specification language implemented as a programming
language. You create a specification language by specifying it
if possible in the same language.
Thus you have one formal language capable of specifying any
other formal language including itself. It becomes then a
"Universal" instead of a "Unified" Modeling Language.
The only programming language that has even come close to
this is PL/I, though it remains a "unified", not "universal"
approach. Extending PL/I from a third to fourth generation
language, something which you could do with C or any other
third generation language, brings it closer to "universal"
status.
I appreciate your surfing of the internet for items you think of
interest. There are scads of good ideas out there, most
hinged upon some "aspect". They point up the effect that
language has in projecting a view of reality. Their
consideration and understanding tend to overcome the
blinders associated with a particular view. I have simply
chosen to offer a view from which you can generate any
other. This gives you the ability to mix and merge views,
nominally not possible from within the view itself.
I focus on productivity and what it takes to increase it. The
metric is relatively simple: does it increase productivity or not?
As much as I disparage C I do support its enthusiast in making
it the best, the most productive C possible. You do not have
to agree with my choices for me to assist in improving the
productivity of yours.
Somewhere along the line we will increase productivity to the
point that we can maintain systems at the rate at which
change requests occur. We have never done that. We are
firmly entrenched with the belief that we will never do it,
that it is impossible. I simply challenge that view with
admittedly an unproven view of my own. That's the beauty
of the scientific method.
=====================================================
To unsubscribe from this list, send an email message
to "steward@scoug.com". In the body of the message,
put the command "unsubscribe scoug-programming".
For problems, contact the list owner at
"rollin@scoug.com".
=====================================================
<< Previous Message <<
Return to [ 05 |
March |
2003 ]
The Southern California OS/2 User Group
P.O. Box 26904
Santa Ana, CA 92799-6904, USA
Copyright 2001 the Southern California OS/2 User Group. ALL RIGHTS
RESERVED.
SCOUG, Warp Expo West, and Warpfest are trademarks of the Southern California OS/2 User Group.
OS/2, Workplace Shell, and IBM are registered trademarks of International
Business Machines Corporation.
All other trademarks remain the property of their respective owners.
