🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <12886@cbnewsc.ATT.COM>, lgm@cbnewsc (lawrence.g.mayka) writes:
>My basic objection to this scenario is that multiple
>modifications, sometimes spanning across the entire system, must
>be made simultaneously in order to transition from one stable
>system state to the next.

True. I've only been involved in projects where the number of
programmers was no greater than three.

>f) Restricting each identifier to a single predetermined and
>(usually) predeclared type, and restricting each function/method
>to a predetermined and predeclared number and sequence of
>arguments and return values, is fundamentally a bookkeeping
>exercise which hinders programmer productivity.

I'm not sure how much this a symptom of languages which don't have
good polymorphic type systems. There is certainly some bookkeeping
involved, but I would argue that the time involved in this is offset
by the faster development time overall. I might also suggest that it
is a good thing, since the programming is forced to examine the
overall structure and heirarchy of the project on various occasions,
rather than let it just grow.

>Such restrictions
>may be symptomatic of an attitude of rigid, centralized control

Presumably you're thinking of large teams of programmers with some
kind of centralised management. In case I was thinking of, there
was just myself, delivering a piece of software to contract.

>Perhaps my main point is a general one, applicable to many debates
>of this kind:  Don't be closed to new approaches, even seemingly
>radical ones, unless your current approach is absolutely
>*delighting* your customers.

My customers were extremely pleased that the exercise of prototyping
in a strongly-typed, higher-order language enabled me to write the
eventual source code many times faster than had I used a conventional
languages to start with. However, your point is well taken. In fact,
my approach *was* the new one, since I was using Standard ML on
a Unix workstation in order to deliver code to a software house
accustomed to PCs, MS-DOS and Microsoft C.

>And even then, keep looking over your shoulder...

Absolutely. Your other points are well taken.

>	Lawrence G. Mayka

		Nick.
--
Nick Rothwell,	Laboratory for Foundations of Computer Science, Edinburgh.
		nick@lfcs.ed.ac.uk    <Atlantic Ocean>!mcvax!ukc!lfcs!nick
~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~
"I like music which sounds like a flying DeLorean being struck by lightning"