Python vs. C++ Builder - speed of development
John Ochiltree
johnochiltree at blueyonder.co.uk
Thu Jan 30 04:39:21 EST 2003
More information about the Python-list mailing list
Thu Jan 30 04:39:21 EST 2003
- Previous message (by thread): Something lost in translation? (was: Python vs. C++ Builder - speed of development)
- Next message (by thread): Python vs. C++ Builder - speed of development
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Brandon Van Every wrote: > John Ochiltree wrote: >> >> Why do you bother to use c++ as you obviously don't care about reuse. >> Patterns these days are essential to OO > > You need to realize that there can be OO and reuse without the "Patterns" > appearing in books like "Design Patterns." That book has absolutely > nothing of use to me on a day-to-day basis. > > If you want to say that I use "mathematical patterns," fine. But I choose > to avoid the term "pattern" because it already has a common meaning to OO > people. And personally, I don't think there would be much point listing > out > a whole pile of common "mathematical patterns." There are so many of > them! Math has an interesting property: there are lotsa ways to compute > the same > thing. No point wrapping it up in the One True Pattern, you just have to > know how to do math. > > Quite simply, we had functions and methods and classes and OO long before > we had patterns. > > -- > Cheers, www.3DProgrammer.com > Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA > > 20% of the world is real. > 80% is gobbledygook we make up inside our own heads. You seem to be suggesting that when you discover a problem to be solved you approach it from mathematical first principles? And what sort of mathematical pattern could be useful in implementing a singleton for instance (leaving aside the obvious distinction required between none and unity)? Or the notion of the decorator, or abstract factory or just about any common day to day programming problem? You also appear to think that patterns provide some sort of direct solution. Implementation is mostly not supplied (esp. in GoF) and you have to implement the pattern in whatever language you're working in. The solution that a pattern provides is at the design level, probably best illustrated by the UML's class and sequence diagrams (amongst others). Or perhaps you have an aversion to acyclic graphs as well? John
- Previous message (by thread): Something lost in translation? (was: Python vs. C++ Builder - speed of development)
- Next message (by thread): Python vs. C++ Builder - speed of development
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Python-list mailing list