|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Date: Mar 26, 2008 00:01
I think I read sometime ago that [perhaps unix/C] designed a set/s of
library/s, intended to be a minimal but sufficient set to do 'any' task ?
But that it is not widely accepted.
So eg. for strings, you might have:
* return position of substring in string, else zero;
...
* insert substring in string at position;
... etc.
I imagine programming then being mostly a matter of
selecting procedures/function out of the library ?
So you've moved the problem to navigating the library ?
Which would be heirarchically arranged ?
eg. > strings > insert > args-description .... ?
Perhaps java-programmers do this by 'browsing' the methods of classes ?
Does it work ?
This query is prompted by an attempt to read some forth code;
where a dictionary of fields:
:
would be usefull.
|
| Show full article (1.16Kb) |
|
| | 7 Comments |
|
|
Author: jason.ciprianijason.cipriani Date: Mar 26, 2008 01:16
I am not sure I understand what you are asking...
On Mar 26, 3:01 am, problems@gmail wrote:
> I think I read sometime ago that [perhaps unix/C] designed a set/s of
> library/s, intended to be a minimal but sufficient set to do 'any' task ?
> But that it is not widely accepted.
Are you thinking of something specific? Both the C standard runtime
library and the Java runtime / component library (among many, many
others -- just using those two as an example, since you mentioned them
both) could be described as sufficient to do 'any' task.
> I imagine programming then being mostly a matter of
> selecting procedures/function out of the library ?
>
> So you've moved the problem to navigating the library ?
Well, I mean, "navigating" the C and Java runtime libraries would
consist of "reading the documentation"... unless you mean something
else?
> Which would be heirarchically arranged ?
> eg. > strings > insert > args-description .... ?
The Java API documentation is fairly well organized...
|
| Show full article (3.02Kb) |
|
| | 4 Comments |
|
|
Author: H. S. LahmanH. S. Lahman Date: Mar 26, 2008 07:08
Responding to problems...
> I think I read sometime ago that [perhaps unix/C] designed a set/s of
> library/s, intended to be a minimal but sufficient set to do 'any' task ?
> But that it is not widely accepted.
>
> So eg. for strings, you might have:
> * return position of substring in string, else zero;
> ...
> * insert substring in string at position;
> ... etc.
>
> I imagine programming then being mostly a matter of
> selecting procedures/function out of the library ?
>
> So you've moved the problem to navigating the library ?
>
> Which would be heirarchically arranged ?
> eg. > strings > insert > args-description .... ?
|
| Show full article (1.99Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Date: Mar 27, 2008 00:27
> I am not sure I understand what you are asking...
>
> On Mar 26, 3:01 am, problems@gmail wrote:
>> I think I read sometime ago that [perhaps unix/C] designed a set/s of
>> library/s, intended to be...
|
| Show full article (4.33Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Bruce McFarlingBruce McFarling Date: Mar 27, 2008 12:25
On Mar 26, 3:01 am, problems@gmail wrote:
> I think I read sometime ago that [perhaps unix/C] designed a set/s of
> library/s, intended to be a minimal but sufficient set to do 'any' task ?
> But that it is not widely accepted.
> So eg. for strings, you might have:
> * return position of substring in string, else zero;
> ...
> * insert substring in string at position;
> ... etc.
> I imagine programming then being mostly a matter of
> selecting procedures/function out of the library ?
|
| Show full article (2.07Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: H. S. LahmanH. S. Lahman Date: Mar 28, 2008 10:36
Responding to problems...
> ============ replying to H. S. Lahman
>>> So you've moved the problem to navigating the library ?
>>>
>>> Which would be heirarchically arranged ?
>>> eg. > strings > insert > args-description .... ?
> H. S. Lahman wrote:-
>> Yes -- if you are programming in a procedural or functional language
>> this sort of functional decomposition was the basis of Structured
>> Development and it is the most intuitive way to build complex modules
>> from atomic functional elements like language operators or library
>> functions.
>>
> The 'to decompose or not' decision has already been taken.
> I'm talking about TimeAndMotion of increasing productivety doing it.
Trying to butter up a basic functional decomposition with OO trimmings
like classes won't help and it may result in the worst of both worlds.
|
| Show full article (5.21Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: jason.ciprianijason.cipriani Date: Mar 28, 2008 21:34
>> Well, I mean, "navigating" the C and Java runtime libraries would
>> consist of "reading the documentation"... unless you mean something
>> else?
>>
> No ! you don't read the dictionary; you navigate it ?
Well, you would navigate the documentation before reading it;
"reading" the documentation, I guess, is the logical next step after
navigating it but I guess that may not apply to your problem. It
depends on what your end goal is... see next paragraph.
|
| Show full article (11.08Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: jason.ciprianijason.cipriani Date: Mar 28, 2008 21:40
On Mar 29, 12:34 am, "jason.cipri...@ gmail.com"
gmail.com> wrote:> This, viewed as an isolated case, is merely a
> shortcoming of language X. It is not necessarily related to some
> global standard. It is just like a spoken language -- if people are
> constantly forming long phrases to describe a common idea, it's
> probably about time to come up with a new word for that commonly
> expressed idea. In the programming world, people frequently attempt to
> solve this problem by coming up with their own libraries that simplify
> repetitive code.
Heh, in fact, these could be compared to various dialects of a certain
spoken language, in which case it seems like you have a monster like
English, but what you really want is French. :-)
|
| |
| no comments |
|
RELATED THREADS |
|
|
|
|
