Dagfinn Reiersol wrote:
> Thomas Gagne wrote:
> > Dagfinn Reiersol wrote:
> >
> >> Robert C. Martin wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hmmm. There could be something to this. We need Visitor because
we
> >>> don't have multiple dispatch. We need Command because we don't
have
> >>> closures. Etc, etc.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Yes, but how important is the difference in the real world? I have
a
> >> feeling that replacing design patterns with marginally simpler
> >> language constructs is not going to be the next breakthrough in
> >> productivity.
> >
> >
> > A design pattern may be a work-around for the lack of closures, but
it
> > is *not* a "marginally simpler language construct..".
> >
> > The difference in productivity of a languages supporting closures
> > against those that do not is in closer's favor. Lack of closures
is why
> > some languages must use iterators over collections and all the
syntax
> > and error they introduce during development. That makes
programmers
> > less productive, and not marginally so.
>
> I knew someone would get me for this. ;-) I was referring to the
> specific example of the Command pattern without considering all other
> possible ways you could replace a design pattern with a language
construct.
>
> Iterators are much more pervasive than the Command pattern--in Java,
> anyway. So the potential difference in productivity is greater. In
other
> words, you have a point.
>
> I was thinking more in terms of what I would consider a normal use of
> design patterns. The way iterators are used in Java seems aberrant to
me.
>
> >
> > There's a reason Java's inner- and related classes are awkward to
learn,
> > use, read, and document. There's a reason Lisp and Smalltalk
> > programmers love their lambdas and blocks.
pattern question? ( FORTH -> C/JAVA => SCHEME/LISP ) VON NEWMAN
BOOK MARK THIS LINK
http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?q=&start=0&scoring=d&enc_author=G4YumhIAAAA0qQiEMNXvzco-t51HUQzYrjcvJMYp3afiZB9NxWdHgA&
AND/OR THIS LINK
http://mywebpage.netscape.com/mawcowboy/homepage.html