JaroslavTulach at 05:43, 30 October 2011 - 2011-10-30 05:43:21

←Older revision Revision as of 05:43, 30 October 2011
Line 5: Line 5:
That is why I am thankful to authors of [http://www.cs.utah.edu/plt/publications/oopsla04-gff.pdf Super and Inner — Together at Last!] for explaining everything in the [[Java]] terminology and even finding ways to make these two worlds co-exist in piece. The paper also proposes new access modifier (which I called for in my [[ClarityOfAccessModifiers]] essay). It is named '''pubment''' and it is a perfectly fine (from [[API]] design perspective) combination of '''callable''' and '''slot''' which allows ''augmentation'':
That is why I am thankful to authors of [http://www.cs.utah.edu/plt/publications/oopsla04-gff.pdf Super and Inner — Together at Last!] for explaining everything in the [[Java]] terminology and even finding ways to make these two worlds co-exist in piece. The paper also proposes new access modifier (which I called for in my [[ClarityOfAccessModifiers]] essay). It is named '''pubment''' and it is a perfectly fine (from [[API]] design perspective) combination of '''callable''' and '''slot''' which allows ''augmentation'':
-
<source lang="java">
+
<source lang="java" snippet="superinner.java"/>
-
public abstract class JavaLikeExample {
+
<source lang="java" snippet="superinner.beta"/>
-
public final int callable() {
+
-
return 1 + theSlot();
+
-
}
+
-
 
+
-
protected abstract int theSlot();
+
-
}
+
-
 
+
-
public abstract class BetaLikeExample {
+
-
pubment int callable() {
+
-
int res = inner.callable();
+
-
return res + 1;
+
-
}
+
-
}
+
-
 
+
-
</source>
+
-
 
+
-
 
+
The paper also explains why '''inner''' is more suitable for [[API]] design. To quote: The overall philosophy of class extension in [[Java]]-like languages (using '''super''') is: ''subclass implementors know better''. The philosophy of class extension in [[Beta]]-like languages (with '''inner''') is: ''superclass implementors know better''.
The paper also explains why '''inner''' is more suitable for [[API]] design. To quote: The overall philosophy of class extension in [[Java]]-like languages (using '''super''') is: ''subclass implementors know better''. The philosophy of class extension in [[Beta]]-like languages (with '''inner''') is: ''superclass implementors know better''.

JaroslavTulach at 12:46, 25 February 2010 - 2010-02-25 12:46:36

←Older revision Revision as of 12:46, 25 February 2010
Line 3: Line 3:
I attribute this to the way subclassing is done in [[Java]] or [[C]]++ or similar languages. For a long time I could not formulate that feeling, but I kept a thought back in my mind about an [[OOP]] language which is not flawed this way - [[Beta]]. However I never had enough time to learn [[Beta]] properly, I just read the specification. It felt somewhat down side up, but without practical experience it was hard to formulate exactly what was so attractive on this ''rotation''.
I attribute this to the way subclassing is done in [[Java]] or [[C]]++ or similar languages. For a long time I could not formulate that feeling, but I kept a thought back in my mind about an [[OOP]] language which is not flawed this way - [[Beta]]. However I never had enough time to learn [[Beta]] properly, I just read the specification. It felt somewhat down side up, but without practical experience it was hard to formulate exactly what was so attractive on this ''rotation''.
-
That is why I am thankful to authors of [http://www.cs.utah.edu/plt/publications/oopsla04-gff.pdf Super and Inner — Together at Last!] for explaining everything in the [[Java]] terminology and even finding ways to make these two worlds co-exist in piece. The paper also proposes new access modifier (which I called for in my [[ClarityOfAccessModifiers]] essay). It is named '''pubment''' and it is a perfectly fine (from [[API]] design perspective) combination of '''callable''' and '''slot''' which allows ''augmentation''.
+
That is why I am thankful to authors of [http://www.cs.utah.edu/plt/publications/oopsla04-gff.pdf Super and Inner — Together at Last!] for explaining everything in the [[Java]] terminology and even finding ways to make these two worlds co-exist in piece. The paper also proposes new access modifier (which I called for in my [[ClarityOfAccessModifiers]] essay). It is named '''pubment''' and it is a perfectly fine (from [[API]] design perspective) combination of '''callable''' and '''slot''' which allows ''augmentation'':
 +
 
 +
<source lang="java">
 +
public abstract class JavaLikeExample {
 +
public final int callable() {
 +
return 1 + theSlot();
 +
}
 +
 
 +
protected abstract int theSlot();
 +
}
 +
 
 +
public abstract class BetaLikeExample {
 +
pubment int callable() {
 +
int res = inner.callable();
 +
return res + 1;
 +
}
 +
}
 +
 
 +
</source>
 +
 
 +
 
The paper also explains why '''inner''' is more suitable for [[API]] design. To quote: The overall philosophy of class extension in [[Java]]-like languages (using '''super''') is: ''subclass implementors know better''. The philosophy of class extension in [[Beta]]-like languages (with '''inner''') is: ''superclass implementors know better''.
The paper also explains why '''inner''' is more suitable for [[API]] design. To quote: The overall philosophy of class extension in [[Java]]-like languages (using '''super''') is: ''subclass implementors know better''. The philosophy of class extension in [[Beta]]-like languages (with '''inner''') is: ''superclass implementors know better''.

JaroslavTulach at 12:42, 24 February 2010 - 2010-02-24 12:42:57

←Older revision Revision as of 12:42, 24 February 2010
Line 7: Line 7:
The paper also explains why '''inner''' is more suitable for [[API]] design. To quote: The overall philosophy of class extension in [[Java]]-like languages (using '''super''') is: ''subclass implementors know better''. The philosophy of class extension in [[Beta]]-like languages (with '''inner''') is: ''superclass implementors know better''.
The paper also explains why '''inner''' is more suitable for [[API]] design. To quote: The overall philosophy of class extension in [[Java]]-like languages (using '''super''') is: ''subclass implementors know better''. The philosophy of class extension in [[Beta]]-like languages (with '''inner''') is: ''superclass implementors know better''.
-
Regardless of using [[Java]] or [[Beta]] style and with the hope to support [[cluelessness]] of our users I'd like to share this advice:
+
Regardless of using [[Java]] or [[Beta]] style and with the hope to support [[cluelessness]] of our [[API]] users I want to recommend:
When designing an [[API]], always make sure that [[ClarityOfAccessModifiers|you know better]] than users of your [[API]]!
When designing an [[API]], always make sure that [[ClarityOfAccessModifiers|you know better]] than users of your [[API]]!
<comments/>
<comments/>

JaroslavTulach at 12:41, 24 February 2010 - 2010-02-24 12:41:03

←Older revision Revision as of 12:41, 24 February 2010
Line 10: Line 10:
When designing an [[API]], always make sure that [[ClarityOfAccessModifiers|you know better]] than users of your [[API]]!
When designing an [[API]], always make sure that [[ClarityOfAccessModifiers|you know better]] than users of your [[API]]!
 +
 +
<comments/>

JaroslavTulach at 12:38, 24 February 2010 - 2010-02-24 12:38:29

←Older revision Revision as of 12:38, 24 February 2010
Line 7: Line 7:
The paper also explains why '''inner''' is more suitable for [[API]] design. To quote: The overall philosophy of class extension in [[Java]]-like languages (using '''super''') is: ''subclass implementors know better''. The philosophy of class extension in [[Beta]]-like languages (with '''inner''') is: ''superclass implementors know better''.
The paper also explains why '''inner''' is more suitable for [[API]] design. To quote: The overall philosophy of class extension in [[Java]]-like languages (using '''super''') is: ''subclass implementors know better''. The philosophy of class extension in [[Beta]]-like languages (with '''inner''') is: ''superclass implementors know better''.
-
Regardless of using [[Java]] or [[Beta]] style and with the hope to support [[cluelessness]] of our users: When designing an [[API]], always make sure that [[ClarityOfAccessModifiers|you know better]] than users of your [[API]]!
+
Regardless of using [[Java]] or [[Beta]] style and with the hope to support [[cluelessness]] of our users I'd like to share this advice:
 +
 
 +
When designing an [[API]], always make sure that [[ClarityOfAccessModifiers|you know better]] than users of your [[API]]!

JaroslavTulach at 12:37, 24 February 2010 - 2010-02-24 12:37:29

←Older revision Revision as of 12:37, 24 February 2010
Line 3: Line 3:
I attribute this to the way subclassing is done in [[Java]] or [[C]]++ or similar languages. For a long time I could not formulate that feeling, but I kept a thought back in my mind about an [[OOP]] language which is not flawed this way - [[Beta]]. However I never had enough time to learn [[Beta]] properly, I just read the specification. It felt somewhat down side up, but without practical experience it was hard to formulate exactly what was so attractive on this ''rotation''.
I attribute this to the way subclassing is done in [[Java]] or [[C]]++ or similar languages. For a long time I could not formulate that feeling, but I kept a thought back in my mind about an [[OOP]] language which is not flawed this way - [[Beta]]. However I never had enough time to learn [[Beta]] properly, I just read the specification. It felt somewhat down side up, but without practical experience it was hard to formulate exactly what was so attractive on this ''rotation''.
-
That is why I am thankful to authors of [http://www.cs.utah.edu/plt/publications/oopsla04-gff.pdf Super and Inner — Together at Last!] for explaining everything in the [[Java]] terminology and even finding ways to make these two worlds co-exist in piece. The paper also proposes new access modifier (which I called for in my [[ClarityOfAccessModifiers]] essay). It is '''pubment''' a perfectly fine (from [[API]] design perspective) combination of '''callable''' and '''slot''' which allows ''augmentation''.
+
That is why I am thankful to authors of [http://www.cs.utah.edu/plt/publications/oopsla04-gff.pdf Super and Inner — Together at Last!] for explaining everything in the [[Java]] terminology and even finding ways to make these two worlds co-exist in piece. The paper also proposes new access modifier (which I called for in my [[ClarityOfAccessModifiers]] essay). It is named '''pubment''' and it is a perfectly fine (from [[API]] design perspective) combination of '''callable''' and '''slot''' which allows ''augmentation''.
The paper also explains why '''inner''' is more suitable for [[API]] design. To quote: The overall philosophy of class extension in [[Java]]-like languages (using '''super''') is: ''subclass implementors know better''. The philosophy of class extension in [[Beta]]-like languages (with '''inner''') is: ''superclass implementors know better''.
The paper also explains why '''inner''' is more suitable for [[API]] design. To quote: The overall philosophy of class extension in [[Java]]-like languages (using '''super''') is: ''subclass implementors know better''. The philosophy of class extension in [[Beta]]-like languages (with '''inner''') is: ''superclass implementors know better''.
Regardless of using [[Java]] or [[Beta]] style and with the hope to support [[cluelessness]] of our users: When designing an [[API]], always make sure that [[ClarityOfAccessModifiers|you know better]] than users of your [[API]]!
Regardless of using [[Java]] or [[Beta]] style and with the hope to support [[cluelessness]] of our users: When designing an [[API]], always make sure that [[ClarityOfAccessModifiers|you know better]] than users of your [[API]]!

JaroslavTulach at 12:36, 24 February 2010 - 2010-02-24 12:36:17

←Older revision Revision as of 12:36, 24 February 2010
Line 5: Line 5:
That is why I am thankful to authors of [http://www.cs.utah.edu/plt/publications/oopsla04-gff.pdf Super and Inner — Together at Last!] for explaining everything in the [[Java]] terminology and even finding ways to make these two worlds co-exist in piece. The paper also proposes new access modifier (which I called for in my [[ClarityOfAccessModifiers]] essay). It is '''pubment''' a perfectly fine (from [[API]] design perspective) combination of '''callable''' and '''slot''' which allows ''augmentation''.
That is why I am thankful to authors of [http://www.cs.utah.edu/plt/publications/oopsla04-gff.pdf Super and Inner — Together at Last!] for explaining everything in the [[Java]] terminology and even finding ways to make these two worlds co-exist in piece. The paper also proposes new access modifier (which I called for in my [[ClarityOfAccessModifiers]] essay). It is '''pubment''' a perfectly fine (from [[API]] design perspective) combination of '''callable''' and '''slot''' which allows ''augmentation''.
-
The paper also explains why '''inner''' is more suitable for [[API]] design. Let me quote: The overall philosophy of class extension in [[Java]]-like languages (using '''super''') is: ''subclass implementors know better''. The philosophy of class extension in [[Beta]]-like languages (with '''inner''') is: ''superclass implementors know better''.
+
The paper also explains why '''inner''' is more suitable for [[API]] design. To quote: The overall philosophy of class extension in [[Java]]-like languages (using '''super''') is: ''subclass implementors know better''. The philosophy of class extension in [[Beta]]-like languages (with '''inner''') is: ''superclass implementors know better''.
-
In a name of [[cluelessness]] of our users: While designing an [[API]] (regardless whether in [[Java]] or [[Beta]] style), always make sure that you know better than users of your [[API]]!
+
Regardless of using [[Java]] or [[Beta]] style and with the hope to support [[cluelessness]] of our users: When designing an [[API]], always make sure that [[ClarityOfAccessModifiers|you know better]] than users of your [[API]]!

JaroslavTulach at 12:34, 24 February 2010 - 2010-02-24 12:34:30

←Older revision Revision as of 12:34, 24 February 2010
Line 1: Line 1:
-
I always felt that there is some clash between the general desire for [[OOP|object oriented]] reuse and [[APIDesignPatterns|principles of good API design]]. Proponents of resuereuse seem to advocate making every method virtual, every class subclassable, every behavior changable. Those who maintained an [[API]] or a framework for some time and tried to keep some degree of [[BackwardCompatibility]] know that opening up more than expected will at the end hurt the reuse.
+
I always felt that there is some clash between the general desire for [[OOP|object oriented]] reuse and [[APIDesignPatterns|principles of good API design]]. Proponents of reuse seem to advocate making every method virtual, every class subclassable, every behavior changeable. Those who maintained [[API]] of a framework for some time and tried to keep some degree of [[BackwardCompatibility]] know that opening up more than planned for will at the end [[Amoeba Model|hurt the reuse]].
-
I attribute this to the way subclassing is done in [[Java]] or [[C]]++ or similar languages. I could not formulate that feeling, but I kept a thought back in my mind about an [[OOP]] language which is not flawed in this way - [[Beta]]. However I never had enough time to learn [[beta]] properly, I just read the specification. It felt somewhat up side down, but without practical experience it was hard to formulate exactly what was up and what was down.
+
I attribute this to the way subclassing is done in [[Java]] or [[C]]++ or similar languages. For a long time I could not formulate that feeling, but I kept a thought back in my mind about an [[OOP]] language which is not flawed this way - [[Beta]]. However I never had enough time to learn [[Beta]] properly, I just read the specification. It felt somewhat down side up, but without practical experience it was hard to formulate exactly what was so attractive on this ''rotation''.
-
That is why I am thankful to authors of [http://www.cs.utah.edu/plt/publications/oopsla04-gff.pdf Super and Inner — Together at Last!] for explaining everything in the [[Java]] terminology and even finding ways how to make these two worlds co-exist in piece.
+
That is why I am thankful to authors of [http://www.cs.utah.edu/plt/publications/oopsla04-gff.pdf Super and Inner — Together at Last!] for explaining everything in the [[Java]] terminology and even finding ways to make these two worlds co-exist in piece. The paper also proposes new access modifier (which I called for in my [[ClarityOfAccessModifiers]] essay). It is '''pubment''' a perfectly fine (from [[API]] design perspective) combination of '''callable''' and '''slot''' which allows ''augmentation''.
 +
 
 +
The paper also explains why '''inner''' is more suitable for [[API]] design. Let me quote: The overall philosophy of class extension in [[Java]]-like languages (using '''super''') is: ''subclass implementors know better''. The philosophy of class extension in [[Beta]]-like languages (with '''inner''') is: ''superclass implementors know better''.
 +
 
 +
In a name of [[cluelessness]] of our users: While designing an [[API]] (regardless whether in [[Java]] or [[Beta]] style), always make sure that you know better than users of your [[API]]!

JaroslavTulach: New page: I always felt that there is some clash between the general desire for object oriented reuse and principles of good API design. Proponents of resuereuse seem t... - 2010-02-24 07:53:17

New page: I always felt that there is some clash between the general desire for object oriented reuse and principles of good API design. Proponents of resuereuse seem t...

New page

I always felt that there is some clash between the general desire for [[OOP|object oriented]] reuse and [[APIDesignPatterns|principles of good API design]]. Proponents of resuereuse seem to advocate making every method virtual, every class subclassable, every behavior changable. Those who maintained an [[API]] or a framework for some time and tried to keep some degree of [[BackwardCompatibility]] know that opening up more than expected will at the end hurt the reuse.

I attribute this to the way subclassing is done in [[Java]] or [[C]]++ or similar languages. I could not formulate that feeling, but I kept a thought back in my mind about an [[OOP]] language which is not flawed in this way - [[Beta]]. However I never had enough time to learn [[beta]] properly, I just read the specification. It felt somewhat up side down, but without practical experience it was hard to formulate exactly what was up and what was down.

That is why I am thankful to authors of [http://www.cs.utah.edu/plt/publications/oopsla04-gff.pdf Super and Inner — Together at Last!] for explaining everything in the [[Java]] terminology and even finding ways how to make these two worlds co-exist in piece.