Re: [dev] Conversation with Anselm R. Garbe of suckless.org

On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 19:18:50 -0700, Jessta wrote: On 19/09/2009, Pinocchio wrote: Take a look at "traits", a somewhat new programming language construct recently introduced in Scala. http://scg.unibe.ch/research/traits Its pretty orthogonal to OO and seems to be a good alternative to inherita

Re: [dev] Conversation with Anselm R. Garbe of suckless.org

On 19/09/2009, Pinocchio wrote: > Take a look at "traits", a somewhat new programming language construct > recently introduced in Scala. > http://scg.unibe.ch/research/traits > Its pretty orthogonal to OO and seems to be a good alternative to > inheritance for code reuse. Of course, only time and

Re: [dev] Conversation with Anselm R. Garbe of suckless.org

On Fri 18 Sep 2009 at 18:33:48 PDT Pinocchio wrote: On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 22:41:16 -0700, Uriel wrote: Please, lets kill this before it even gets started, we had a huge discussion about this crap in 9fans if anyone is interested. Can you summarize why do you think it is crap, for those who are

Re: [dev] Conversation with Anselm R. Garbe of suckless.org

On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 3:33 AM, Pinocchio wrote: > On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 22:41:16 -0700, Uriel wrote: > >>> >>> Did you take a look at the "blocks" extension to the C language in >>> Apple's >>> recently opensourced GCD? They fought with some of the same problems you >>> mention above but they wor

Re: [dev] Conversation with Anselm R. Garbe of suckless.org

On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 06:22:44 -0700, frederic wrote: The OO debate in this thread is also very interesting. I would argue that its really a trade-off between "predicting" future changes in your source and "getting the prediction wrong". I would argue that it is _great_ to see a lot of code reuse

Re: [dev] Conversation with Anselm R. Garbe of suckless.org

On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 14:46:35 -0700, Uriel wrote: On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 3:22 PM, frederic wrote: Anticipating changes in the code is a generally a bad idea, because your predictions are likely to fail This can't be repeated often enough. Your predictions are not likely to fail, they are *b

Re: [dev] Conversation with Anselm R. Garbe of suckless.org

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 22:41:16 -0700, Uriel wrote: Did you take a look at the "blocks" extension to the C language in Apple's recently opensourced GCD? They fought with some of the same problems you mention above but they worked around it. Please, lets kill this before it even gets started, we

Re: [dev] Conversation with Anselm R. Garbe of suckless.org

On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 3:22 PM, frederic wrote: > Anticipating changes in the code is a generally a bad idea, because your > predictions are likely to fail This can't be repeated often enough. Your predictions are not likely to fail, they are *bound to crumble in an epic implosion of pure fail*.

Re: [dev] Conversation with Anselm R. Garbe of suckless.org

On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 05:00:05 +0200, Pinocchio wrote: On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 04:58:39 -0700, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: On 9/16/09, Frederic DUBOIS wrote: 2009/9/16 Uriel : On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 12:03 AM, frederic wrote: I'm pretty sure that if C featured closures, Anselm would cleverly use

Re: [dev] Conversation with Anselm R. Garbe of suckless.org

Type checking is only needed if your language needs ot have types, one of the most amazing discoveries for me while using rc ( http://rc.cat-v.org ) to build werc ( http://werc.cat-v.org ) is how well things can work with just one datatype (in the case of rc, the list of strings). Type cheking is

Re: [dev] Conversation with Anselm R. Garbe of suckless.org

> Also, I would like to know, what do people on this list feel about type > checking in general? a fan, definitely. if i gave a damn about customizing my WM i'd use xmonad. but stock dwm is fine..

Re: [dev] Conversation with Anselm R. Garbe of suckless.org

On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 5:00 AM, Pinocchio wrote: > On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 04:58:39 -0700, Szabolcs Nagy > wrote: > >> On 9/16/09, Frederic DUBOIS wrote: >>> >>> 2009/9/16 Uriel : On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 12:03 AM, frederic wrote: > > I'm pretty sure that if C featured closures, A

Re: [dev] Conversation with Anselm R. Garbe of suckless.org

On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 04:58:39 -0700, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: On 9/16/09, Frederic DUBOIS wrote: 2009/9/16 Uriel : On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 12:03 AM, frederic wrote: I'm pretty sure that if C featured closures, Anselm would cleverly use them and make an even more simple, customizable and elegant

Re: [dev] Conversation with Anselm R. Garbe of suckless.org

A whole thread about masturbating to ones favorite programming paradigm 2009/9/16 Mate Nagy : >> i'd argue that closures don't mix well with the c style of programming >> >> eg if you add closures then you'd need anonymous functions then you'd >> start writing in the functional style passing a

Re: [dev] Conversation with Anselm R. Garbe of suckless.org

> i'd argue that closures don't mix well with the c style of programming > > eg if you add closures then you'd need anonymous functions then you'd > start writing in the functional style passing around functions then > you'd need memory management to clean up the return values and > arguments (so

Re: [dev] Conversation with Anselm R. Garbe of suckless.org

On 9/16/09, Frederic DUBOIS wrote: > 2009/9/16 Uriel : >> On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 12:03 AM, frederic wrote: >>> I'm pretty sure that if C featured closures, Anselm would cleverly use >>> them >>> and >>> make an even more simple, customizable and elegant dwm. >> >> I'm pretty sure that if C featu

Re: [dev] Conversation with Anselm R. Garbe of suckless.org

2009/9/16 Uriel : > On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 12:03 AM, frederic wrote: >> I'm pretty sure that if C featured closures, Anselm would cleverly use them >> and >> make an even more simple, customizable and elegant dwm. > > I'm pretty sure that if C featured closures, Anselm and many others > would pro

Re: [dev] Conversation with Anselm R. Garbe of suckless.org

On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Anselm R Garbe wrote: > 2009/9/16 Alan Busby : > > > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Anselm R Garbe > >> > >> IDE's like Eclipse have code assitance support to generate these > >> automatically, great isn't it? So if you imagine a Java program where > >> each d

Re: [dev] Conversation with Anselm R. Garbe of suckless.org

2009/9/16 Alan Busby : > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Anselm R Garbe >> >> IDE's like Eclipse have code assitance support to generate these >> automatically, great isn't it? So if you imagine a Java program where >> each datum access happens through getters and setters, the program >> must be

Re: [dev] Conversation with Anselm R. Garbe of suckless.org

On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Anselm R Garbe > > IDE's like Eclipse have code assitance support to generate these > automatically, great isn't it? So if you imagine a Java program where > each datum access happens through getters and setters, the program > must become a magnitude faster if the

Re: [dev] Conversation with Anselm R. Garbe of suckless.org

2009/9/15 frederic : > I believe that closures could improve dwm for instance. Anselm says that > he doesn't miss them, but it seems to me that he used a lot of tricks to > replace > them. > For instance, the Monitor struct packs all of the fields that a layout > function may need. > The Arg union

Re: [dev] Conversation with Anselm R. Garbe of suckless.org

Uriel wrote: On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 3:40 AM, Jack Woehr wrote: Look at the great ideologues of the recent decades. It was not until I beat him up for months about it that he started to change his ways. Ha! He is actually *listenting* and he proceeds to actually test the ideas that o

Re: [dev] Conversation with Anselm R. Garbe of suckless.org

On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 3:40 AM, Jack Woehr wrote: > Look at the great ideologues of the recent decades. Richard M. Stallman, > lop, lop, lop. Theo DeRaadt, > lop, lop, lop. I love and respect these guys but when you bow down to an > absolute ideology, you > have to sacrifice a lot. The strength o

Re: [dev] Conversation with Anselm R. Garbe of suckless.org

On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 12:03 AM, frederic wrote: > I'm pretty sure that if C featured closures, Anselm would cleverly use them > and > make an even more simple, customizable and elegant dwm. I'm pretty sure that if C featured closures, Anselm and many others would promptly and cleverly hang them

Re: [dev] Conversation with Anselm R. Garbe of suckless.org

On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 11:42 PM, Charlie Kester wrote: > On Tue 15 Sep 2009 at 13:51:44 PDT Amit Uttamchandani wrote: >> >> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 09:33:22PM +0200, markus schnalke wrote: >>> >>> You have the separation in the operation system then. Single >>> independent programs take the place

Re: [dev] Conversation with Anselm R. Garbe of suckless.org

On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 11:42 PM, Charlie Kester wrote: > On Tue 15 Sep 2009 at 13:51:44 PDT Amit Uttamchandani wrote: >> >> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 09:33:22PM +0200, markus schnalke wrote: >>> >>> You have the separation in the operation system then. Single >>> independent programs take the place

Re: [dev] Conversation with Anselm R. Garbe of suckless.org

frederic wrote: Anselm R Garbe wrote: I don't miss closures. You got the static keyword to avoid polluting the global namespace. Kind regards, Anselm U think it may be genetic? :) Byzantine libraries, rich class hierarchies, clever closures, maybe are for members of the species /programmator

Re: [dev] Conversation with Anselm R. Garbe of suckless.org

Anselm R Garbe wrote: I don't miss closures. You got the static keyword to avoid polluting the global namespace. Kind regards, Anselm U think it may be genetic? :) Byzantine libraries, rich class hierarchies, clever closures, maybe are for members of the species /programmator domesticus/.

Re: [dev] Conversation with Anselm R. Garbe of suckless.org

On Tue 15 Sep 2009 at 13:51:44 PDT Amit Uttamchandani wrote: On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 09:33:22PM +0200, markus schnalke wrote: You have the separation in the operation system then. Single independent programs take the place of classes. You can combine them to larger programs. Again I agree her

Re: [dev] Conversation with Anselm R. Garbe of suckless.org

On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 09:33:22PM +0200, markus schnalke wrote: > [2009-09-13 23:34] Amit Uttamchandani > > > > Just curious as to the arguments against OO programming. All the classes > > I have taken in uni always trumpet OO. > > The problem of discussions with most people about OO is that t

Re: [dev] Conversation with Anselm R. Garbe of suckless.org

On Tue 15 Sep 2009 at 12:33:22 PDT markus schnalke wrote: You have the separation in the operation system then. Single independent programs take the place of classes. You can combine them to larger programs. Interesting. I've been accustomed to looking at a dataflow diagram and seeing the bubb

Re: [dev] Conversation with Anselm R. Garbe of suckless.org

In big and complex programs OO makes even less sense, and causes even more harm, the difference is that in the mist of so much complexity it is less obvious that OO is totally worthless, when in the case of a really simple program, it becomes painful self evident that 90% of the complexity comes fr

Re: [dev] Conversation with Anselm R. Garbe of suckless.org

[2009-09-13 23:34] Amit Uttamchandani > > Just curious as to the arguments against OO programming. All the classes > I have taken in uni always trumpet OO. The problem of discussions with most people about OO is that they simply have this different POV. They have their many-thousand SLOC large

Re: [dev] Conversation with Anselm R. Garbe of suckless.org

On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 02:35:46AM +0200, Uriel wrote: [snip] > > > > Some examples: > > > >  1. I designed a software to automate testing of the boxes that we > >  build. The main language used is Python (I guess it's hard to avoid OO > >  when using python). Basically the design is such that I

Re: [dev] Conversation with Anselm R. Garbe of suckless.org

On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 07:15:07PM +0100, Anselm R Garbe wrote: [snip] > > 2. A colleague of mine needed to design a packet generation engines for > > our box. He used OO concepts in CC by using techniques such as VTABLE, > > defines for methods, classes, etc: > > > > /** > > * Macros for de

Re: [dev] Conversation with Anselm R. Garbe of suckless.org

Daniel Bainton wrote: 2009/9/15 Jack Woehr : U think it may be genetic? :) Ah, thanks for proving that Uriel isn't quite in the bottom of the chain, atleast he seems to know how to spell words instead of replacing really short words with one letter like a complete idiot. :) -- Daniel

Re: [dev] Conversation with Anselm R. Garbe of suckless.org

And at least I don't put *fucking html* in my emails. Peace uriel On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 6:23 PM, Daniel Bainton wrote: > 2009/9/15 Jack Woehr : >> U think it may be genetic? :) > > Ah, thanks for proving that Uriel isn't quite in the bottom of the > chain, atleast he seems to know how to spel

Re: [dev] Conversation with Anselm R. Garbe of suckless.org

2009/9/15 Jack Woehr : > U think it may be genetic? :) Ah, thanks for proving that Uriel isn't quite in the bottom of the chain, atleast he seems to know how to spell words instead of replacing really short words with one letter like a complete idiot. :) -- Daniel

Re: [dev] Conversation with Anselm R. Garbe of suckless.org

Anselm R Garbe wrote: I don't miss closures. You got the static keyword to avoid polluting the global namespace. Kind regards, Anselm U think it may be genetic? :) Byzantine libraries, rich class hierarchies, clever closures, maybe are for members of the species /programmator domesticus/. T

Re: [dev] Conversation with Anselm R. Garbe of suckless.org

2009/9/14 frederic : > > Sorry Anselm, I forgot to thank you for your quick answer. > >>> 1. I designed a software to automate testing of the boxes that we >>> build. The main language used is Python (I guess it's hard to avoid OO >>> when using python). Basically the design is such that I have

Re: [dev] Conversation with Anselm R. Garbe of suckless.org

On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 6:16 PM, Amit Uttamchandani wrote: > On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 08:59:12AM +0100, Anselm R Garbe wrote: >> > Just curious as to the arguments against OO programming. All the classes >> > I have taken in uni always trumpet OO. I have been using it ever since >> > but I do agree

Re: [dev] Conversation with Anselm R. Garbe of suckless.org

Sorry Anselm, I forgot to thank you for your quick answer. 1. I designed a software to automate testing of the boxes that we build. The main language used is Python (I guess it's hard to avoid OO when using python). Basically the design is such that I have a test case class that is used wh

Re: [dev] Conversation with Anselm R. Garbe of suckless.org

2009/9/14 Amit Uttamchandani : > On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 08:59:12AM +0100, Anselm R Garbe wrote: >> > Just curious as to the arguments against OO programming. All the classes >> > I have taken in uni always trumpet OO. I have been using it ever since >> > but I do agree that it can get out of hand

Re: [dev] Conversation with Anselm R. Garbe of suckless.org

On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 08:59:12AM +0100, Anselm R Garbe wrote: > > Just curious as to the arguments against OO programming. All the classes > > I have taken in uni always trumpet OO. I have been using it ever since > > but I do agree that it can get out of hand at times. > > Let me paste some res

Re: [dev] Conversation with Anselm R. Garbe of suckless.org

Anselm R Garbe wrote: 2009/9/14 Amit Uttamchandani : My question is that, there are some approaches that 'seem' easier/logical to implement with OO, how does one approach this in a not OO way? Well that was my excuse when I was a fan of OO as well, that there are plenty problems "bette

Re: [dev] Conversation with Anselm R. Garbe of suckless.org

> This is one of most important lessons, and most often forgotten, in > the history of programming. Fred Brooks mentioned it in The Mythical > Man Month (which should be one of three books every programmer knows > by heart), and was repeated again by Pike and Kernighan in the > Practice of Programm

Re: [dev] Conversation with Anselm R. Garbe of suckless.org

On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Anselm R Garbe wrote: > 2009/9/14 Amit Uttamchandani : >> On Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 05:26:55PM -0600, Jack Woehr wrote: >>> And for your delectation: Conversation with Anselm R. Garbe of >>> suckless.org >>>

Re: [dev] Conversation with Anselm R. Garbe of suckless.org

On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 8:34 AM, Amit Uttamchandani wrote: > On Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 05:26:55PM -0600, Jack Woehr wrote: >> And for your delectation: Conversation with Anselm R. Garbe of >> suckless.org >>

Re: [dev] Conversation with Anselm R. Garbe of suckless.org

No HTML email, please. And for your delectation: http://dobbscodetalk.com/index.php?option=com_myblog&show=Conversation-with-Anselm-R.-Garbe-of-suckless.org.html&Itemid=29";>Conversation with Anselm R. Garbe of suckless.org -- Jack J. Woehr# «'I know what "it" means well enough,

Re: [dev] Conversation with Anselm R. Garbe of suckless.org

2009/9/14 Amit Uttamchandani : > On Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 05:26:55PM -0600, Jack Woehr wrote: >> And for your delectation: Conversation with Anselm R. Garbe of >> suckless.org >>

Re: [dev] Conversation with Anselm R. Garbe of suckless.org

On Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 05:26:55PM -0600, Jack Woehr wrote: > And for your delectation: Conversation with Anselm R. Garbe of > suckless.org > > Definitely an interesting

Re: [dev] Conversation with Anselm R. Garbe of suckless.org

2009/8/7 Jack Woehr : > Yes, Samuel, Anselm is very cogent when he presents his position ... it was > a delightful conversation for an interviewer. Indeed, I found myself wanting a bit more. Both that and feeling inspired to go out and write something. Unfortunately most of my projects are half-co

Re: [dev] Conversation with Anselm R. Garbe of suckless.org

Charlie Kester wrote: On Thu 06 Aug 2009 at 16:52:39 PDT Samuel Baldwin wrote: I definitely enjoyed reading this; the principles were especially nice to have there. Yes, Samuel, Anselm is very cogent when he presents his position ... it was a delightful conversation for an interviewer. (2)

Re: [dev] Conversation with Anselm R. Garbe of suckless.org

On Thu 06 Aug 2009 at 16:52:39 PDT Samuel Baldwin wrote: I definitely enjoyed reading this; the principles were especially nice to have there. Yes, I agree. I hadn't seen the "Java is the COBOL of the future" quip before. Very funny -- and, I believe, something that will be proven true. I wou

Re: [dev] Conversation with Anselm R. Garbe of suckless.org

I definitely enjoyed reading this; the principles were especially nice to have there. -- Samuel Baldwin - logik.li

[dev] Conversation with Anselm R. Garbe of suckless.org

And for your delectation: Conversation with Anselm R. Garbe of suckless.org -- Jack J. Woehr# «'I know what "it" means well enough, when I find http://www.w