[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       ruby-talk
Subject:    Re: Strong encapsulation, static typing and unit testing
From:       "M. Edward (Ed) Borasky" <znmeb () cesmail ! net>
Date:       2006-12-31 17:55:41
Message-ID: 4597F976.2080306 () cesmail ! net
[Download RAW message or body]

Robert Dober wrote:
> What I meant is the following,  Is it possible to hide the choice of the
> implementation language from the customer, can an abstraction be made to
> "get the job done".
> But this still might be OT, do not mind too much about it.
Now *that* is an interesting philosophical question. Not "is it wise to 
hide the choice of the implementation language from the customer", but 
is it *possible*?

On an "agile" project, probably it is neither wise nor possible, given 
that the customer is probably in the loop and even in the room while the 
programming is going on. But on a huge project, unless the language is 
mandated, like Ada for certain types of defense projects, it's not only 
possible but probably a good idea. I have, for example, absolutely no 
idea what the implementation language is for any of the major Microsoft 
projects -- Office, the Windows kernel, or IE. I can guess it's C++, or 
I could Google for it, I suppose, and given the age of the products I 
can rule out Java. But there's nothing in any of these complex products 
that is customer-visible that rules out implementation in any 
sufficiently-capable language.

-- 
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky, FBG, AB, PTA, PGS, MS, MNLP, NST, ACMC(P)
http://borasky-research.blogspot.com/

If God had meant for carrots to be eaten cooked, He would have given rabbits fire.


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]