pipe
Fabio Filasieno
fabio.filasieno at gmail.com
Mon Aug 27 15:23:57 UTC 2007
On Aug 27, 2007, at 4:56 PM, Denis Kudriashov wrote:
> It's very cool.
> Smalltalk is wonderfull language. We can implement any ideas
> without making changes in language (as Java or C# live).
> I think pipes is very usefull in DSL implementation and usage,
> simpler and fast object inspecting. But long message chaines in
> domain code are bad smell
Long chains smells alright to me.
A long chain of filters (especially when functions are side-effect
free) is
- readable, quickly understandable, self documenting
- easy to write as you compose
- particularly useful in prototyping : simply compose what you have
quickly, than, if required, rebuild it properly
Not a code smell to be.
But that code is written by someone who prefers his intent as a
composition of simpler parts, particularly when code is side-effect
free.
But ... it might NOT be good for production for performance reasons
or because some re-factoring could make it even more clear in certain
cases.
On Aug 27, 2007, at 7:15 AM, Jason Johnson wrote:
> 1) We need what you call a "pipe" operator
> 2) You don't think we need cascade
>
> Point 1 is an easy sell. I don't see why you are strongly for point
> 2. I like the cascade operator and I find it useful. If you don't,
> don't use it.
Happy to see that it seems that your opinion has changed on point 1
from the beginning of the thread, and mine has changed on point 2.
And to close this issue: the pipe idea come to me in the beginning as
a pipe vs cascade problem, as the cascade didn't allow the functional
compositions I care of. So I presented it that way to the list
(happily making some noise), but it's obvious now that I'm not
selling anymore a "dump-the-cascade-idea""
Fabio
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20070827/b9dc4cbf/attachment.htm
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|