Comments on: The Ola Bini challenge http://zwitserloot.com/2006/11/21/the-ola-bini-challenge/ Tue, 16 Feb 2010 12:31:46 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: rzwitserloot http://zwitserloot.com/2006/11/21/the-ola-bini-challenge/comment-page-1/#comment-465 rzwitserloot Sat, 25 Nov 2006 16:42:27 +0000 http://www.zwitserloot.com/2006/11/21/the-ola-bini-challenge/#comment-465 Axel: Yes, I did. A rather confusing typo indeed. I'll fix it now. Axel: Yes, I did. A rather confusing typo indeed. I’ll fix it now.

]]> By: Axel http://zwitserloot.com/2006/11/21/the-ola-bini-challenge/comment-page-1/#comment-451 Axel Fri, 24 Nov 2006 07:28:42 +0000 http://www.zwitserloot.com/2006/11/21/the-ola-bini-challenge/#comment-451 I suppose you meant "reflection" instead of "refactoring" in a few places in your post? nitpickingly yours, Axel I suppose you meant “reflection” instead of “refactoring” in a few places in your post?
nitpickingly yours,
Axel

]]> By: Wunschdenken » Blog Archiv » Subtext Refactoring http://zwitserloot.com/2006/11/21/the-ola-bini-challenge/comment-page-1/#comment-450 Wunschdenken » Blog Archiv » Subtext Refactoring Fri, 24 Nov 2006 06:59:12 +0000 http://www.zwitserloot.com/2006/11/21/the-ola-bini-challenge/#comment-450 [...] A refactoring changes the shape of your program, while maintaining the program’s behaviour. You do it so the code gets into a shape that makes the changes you are aiming for easier to apply, and makes it easier to reason about their correctness. The correctness of the initial refactoring is guaranteed by your IDE. Note that even a refactoring is a change; it is only guaranteed to be “correct” as long as you live in a closed world, where all the code you might interact with is contained in your IDE project. As soon as you leave that safe haven, using type casts, reflection, dynamic linking, or when you guarantee backwards compatibility for published interfaces, that’s over. [...] [...] A refactoring changes the shape of your program, while maintaining the program’s behaviour. You do it so the code gets into a shape that makes the changes you are aiming for easier to apply, and makes it easier to reason about their correctness. The correctness of the initial refactoring is guaranteed by your IDE. Note that even a refactoring is a change; it is only guaranteed to be “correct” as long as you live in a closed world, where all the code you might interact with is contained in your IDE project. As soon as you leave that safe haven, using type casts, reflection, dynamic linking, or when you guarantee backwards compatibility for published interfaces, that’s over. [...]

]]> By: rzwitserloot http://zwitserloot.com/2006/11/21/the-ola-bini-challenge/comment-page-1/#comment-424 rzwitserloot Tue, 21 Nov 2006 23:07:10 +0000 http://www.zwitserloot.com/2006/11/21/the-ola-bini-challenge/#comment-424 Glad that's sorted. I do think there's a real discussion here - provided it is held on the proper terms: Including the notion of what tools can do with all that static information. I've dismissed python and rails as fun ideas that aren't useful, but something like <a href="http://boo.codehaus.org/" rel="nofollow">Boo</a>, at least the theory behind it, sounds interesting. It's very very similar to the intent and purpose of latent typing, yet there's a convenient 'out' for enabling the tools. There's also massive inference and typing flexibility such as that expressed by Haskell, which also promises some excellent scalability (in the software development sense). It's a shame so much of the discussion gets overshadowed by meaningless fodder (like e.g. Bruce Eckel's post). Glad that’s sorted. I do think there’s a real discussion here – provided it is held on the proper terms: Including the notion of what tools can do with all that static information.

I’ve dismissed python and rails as fun ideas that aren’t useful, but something like Boo, at least the theory behind it, sounds interesting. It’s very very similar to the intent and purpose of latent typing, yet there’s a convenient ‘out’ for enabling the tools.

There’s also massive inference and typing flexibility such as that expressed by Haskell, which also promises some excellent scalability (in the software development sense). It’s a shame so much of the discussion gets overshadowed by meaningless fodder (like e.g. Bruce Eckel’s post).

]]> By: Ola Bini http://zwitserloot.com/2006/11/21/the-ola-bini-challenge/comment-page-1/#comment-422 Ola Bini Tue, 21 Nov 2006 22:34:53 +0000 http://www.zwitserloot.com/2006/11/21/the-ola-bini-challenge/#comment-422 Hi, Yeah, I know, that's probably true. My post wasn't really about the relevant uses of refactoring. I just took issue with blanket statements about 100% of something. So, I grant you that in the everyday case you're right. There probably is some contrived example that breaks, but that isn't useful in reality. Hi,

Yeah, I know, that’s probably true. My post wasn’t really about the relevant uses of refactoring. I just took issue with blanket statements about 100% of something. So, I grant you that in the everyday case you’re right. There probably is some contrived example that breaks, but that isn’t useful in reality.

]]>