Advertisement
What languages are you currently using ?
Is your language an Agile language or you keep doing most of the effort to satisfy a compiler ?
Is your language an Agile language or you keep doing most of the effort to satisfy a compiler ?
posted by:
|
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: Languages, anyone ?
Fri, January 16, 2004 - 9:30 AMI've worked in smalltalk and java doing agile coding, and I must say: smalltalk rocks java in this aspect. People look at you strange when you start coding in the debugger and hitting continue until the test runs, but it really just smokes on having to deal with things like interfaces, explicit compilation, etc.
I'm only bummed that the best language for development I've ever used is so out of fashion in industry. -
-
Re: Languages, anyone ?
Fri, January 16, 2004 - 10:30 AMdo you know Ruby ?
it has some smalltalk-ish features, plus
some other nice features stolen from perl and python.
it's cross-platform, strongly object oriented,
interpreted, dynamically-typed,
plus... it's opensource !
maybe you want to have a look at:
www.ruby-lang.org
(there's also a ruby script engine for java
out there called jruby that allows you to
script Java objects from ruby scripts)
cheers !
vruz -
-
Re: Languages, anyone ?
Fri, January 16, 2004 - 2:13 PMI'm actually highly excited about Ruby; I ran into one of the Java guys blogging about it a while ago, and I saw him use the Smalltalk-ish construct like:
object do: [ bar | bar compute. ]
(i.e., using closures, which are so damn great). One of the hangups about things like jruby is it makes you bytecode compile your code (right?). -
-
Re: Languages, anyone ?
Fri, January 16, 2004 - 3:13 PMit's a ruby language re-implementation in Java,
is that what you meant ?
I don't see a drawback but an advantage there. -
-
Re: Languages, anyone ?
Sun, January 18, 2004 - 10:54 AMI dont see an explicit disadvantage for the interoperability, but I do see something of an issue with the compilation. With smalltalk, you can just write a line of code and say "doIt" and it runs. If it crashes in the middle, you patch it and say "continue". You never even think about javac or compilation problems.
More recent JVM things like dynamic class inejction at runtime and the great modern IDEs (eclipse, intellij) that can really let you patch in the debugger are moving in this direction, but they're not perfect. And you still have to think about compiling (at least under intellij), which is just one more cognitive step between your hands and actually seeing if the test passed. I'm pretty sure the eclipse continuous compilation model is stolen right from VisualAge for Smalltalk. -
-
Re: Languages, anyone ?
Sun, January 18, 2004 - 12:42 PMoh, okay, but that's not a ruby problem but a
java problem, jruby precisely alliviates the suffering
java coder from compiling too often.
ruby's original implementation continues to be
interpreted, no compilation.
it's funny, because most in the ruby community think
ruby will have a major boost and popularity when
we have a native ruby bytecode compiler.
(mainly for performance issues)
-
-
-
-
-
