Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #24120

Re: lectures about "programming methodology"

Show key headers only | View raw

On 05/17/2013 08:02 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 5/17/2013 6:53 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 5/17/2013 6:35 PM, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
>>> On 05/12/2013 11:17 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>> On 5/8/2013 4:48 PM, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
>>>>> On 05/07/2013 10:38 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/7/2013 6:10 PM, David Lamb wrote:
>>>>>>> On 06/05/2013 9:46 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/6/2013 6:28 PM, Stefan Ram wrote:
>>>>>>>>>    A scope is a region of the source text. Identifiers
>>>>>>>>>    have a scope.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>    A lifetime is a period of time during the execution
>>>>>>>>>    of a program. Variables and objects have lifetimes.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>    This has no special relation with Java, this is
>>>>>>>>>    software engineering (or »programming methodology«).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I really don't see that as software engineering.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is a CS exercise in definitions with little practical
>>>>>>>> benefits.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Whoah, scope versus lifetime is a pretty fundamental distinction.
>>>>>>> Admittedly it was more fundamental in old block-structured languages
>>>>>>> like Algol, but still...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fundamental for software engineering??
>>>>>>
>>>>> Well, in order to be a software engineer you must know how to program.
>>>>
>>>> In theory no. Software engineering is the process of getting from
>>>> requirements to a detailed description of the implementation. The
>>>> output does not have to be code.
>>>>
>>>> In practice yes. 99.999% will have to produce code as output. Producing
>>>> documentation outlining details of all data structure and control
>>>> structures and then later let somebody else convert it to actual
>>>> code rarely make sense.
>>>>
>>>> So let us assume that software engineering requires coding.
>>>>
>>>>> That's essential. So I'd say that programming concepts that are basic
>>>>> and fundamental like these two are important at the software
>>>>> engineering
>>>>> level.
>>>>
>>>> Why?
>>>>
>>>> Some given code does not get better or worse depending on whether
>>>> the author know those definitions.
>>>>
>>>> The usual reason to know common terms is to be able to communicate
>>>> efficiently.
>>>>
>>>> But is those two terms something that is used in communication
>>>> as part of software development?
>>>>
>>>> I doubt that.
>>
>>> I respectfully disagree. Maybe we are arguing at cross-purposes here,
>>> Arne, I can't conceive of a competent developer not understanding scope
>>> and lifetime. Maybe you don't actually use the words in communication
>>> often, but it's part of your thinking. I probably last used the term
>>> "garbage collection" in a conversation last year, but I think about it
>>> at least once a week.
>>>
>>> Scope and lifetime are concepts that fall into the larger categories of
>>> resource management and reliability. At a minimum.
>>>
>>> A lot of programmers may not use the terms per se, but you can always
>>> tell the difference between the coders who understand those 2 concepts,
>>> and the ones that don't. And the latter always write worse code. So to
>>> me that makes them essential concepts in software engineering.
>>
>> I agree that an understanding of the substance behind the two terms
>> are necessary for programming - and for software engineering.
>>
>> My disagreement was only about the necessity of knowing the terms.
>>
>> I assume that Stefan was talking about the usage of the terms.
>>
>> As it is possible for a lecturer to get the terms mixed up, but I can
>> not really see how it would be possible to get the substances
>> mixed up.
>
> And I am not considering it useless to know the definitions
> either.
>
> I just don't see knowing the definitions as being
> part of software engineering discipline.
>
> Arne
>
>
Might be a matter of how we interpret the English. To me, "knowing the 
definitions" means to "understand the substance".

AHS

Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: lectures about "programming methodology" Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-05-06 21:46 -0400
  Re: lectures about "programming methodology" Sven Köhler <remove-sven.koehler@gmail.com> - 2013-05-07 13:45 +0300
    Re: lectures about "programming methodology" Sven Köhler <remove-sven.koehler@gmail.com> - 2013-05-07 15:52 +0300
    Re: lectures about "programming methodology" markspace <markspace@nospam.nospam> - 2013-05-07 09:44 -0700
    Re: lectures about "programming methodology" Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-05-07 21:37 -0400
  Re: lectures about "programming methodology" David Lamb <dalamb@cs.queensu.ca> - 2013-05-07 18:10 -0400
    Re: lectures about "programming methodology" Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-05-07 21:38 -0400
      Re: lectures about "programming methodology" Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom2@eastlink.ca> - 2013-05-08 17:48 -0300
        Re: lectures about "programming methodology" Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-05-12 22:17 -0400
          Re: lectures about "programming methodology" Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom2@eastlink.ca> - 2013-05-17 19:35 -0300
            Re: lectures about "programming methodology" Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-05-17 18:53 -0400
              Re: lectures about "programming methodology" Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-05-17 19:02 -0400
                Re: lectures about "programming methodology" Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom2@eastlink.ca> - 2013-05-17 20:14 -0300
                Re: lectures about "programming methodology" Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-05-17 19:29 -0400
                Re: lectures about "programming methodology" lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> - 2013-05-18 11:07 +0100

csiph-web