This post originated from an RSS feed registered with Ruby Buzz by Jim Weirich. Original Post: Some Pointers Feed Title: { | one, step, back | } Feed URL: http://onestepback.org/index.cgi/synopsis.rss Feed Description: Jim Weirich's Blog on Software Development, Ruby, and whatever else sparks his interest. Latest Ruby Buzz Posts Latest Ruby Buzz Posts by Jim Weirich Latest Posts From { | one, step, back | }

But First, Some Apologies

Yes, my site was down for a few days in February. I didn’t notice it right away, and when someone at work pointed out they couldn’t get to onestepback.org I had to wait to fix it until I got home. Even then, I thought it was only down for the day. It wasn’t until I reviewed the web stats for February did I realize that it was down for at least three days.

Sorry. It turns out that the copy of apache servicing http requests had crashed and burned. The ssl server was still up so remote access to my mail was OK. I just didn’t notice that the http server was down (see, I really was busy). Nevertheless, we now have some monitoring software in place so simple crashes shouldn’t cause extended outages any more.

Directing VS Enabling

Static verses Dynamic Typing. Checked verses Unchecked Exceptions. The battle rage on (and I’ve taken part in my share of them). Martin Fowler has some keen insight into the nature of the proponents of each side of the debate. He calls it the difference between a Directing attitude and an Enabling attitude. Directors wish to make the computing environment as safe as possible and willing accept restrictions to achieve that goal. Enablers desire flexibility above (in their view unneeded) safety, and will chaffe unagainst restrictions. Read Martin’s writeup, he explains it much better than I do.

I’ve landed on both sides of the debate in the past. Lately I’ve found myself on the enabler side of the equation more often than not.

When Generic’s Aren’t

Bruce Eckel has some surprising insight on the use of generics in Java (available in Java 1.5). For those who enjoy the ad-hoc polymorphism available in C++ generics are going to be surprised by Java’s version. If Eckel is correct, then generics look like they will be great for making generic containers and little else.

See Bruce’s article for details.

And More on Latent Typing

Speaking of the Static/Dynamic typing debate, the feedback page for Eckel’s Generics article, a commenter is defends the need for interfaces with the following comment:

In java, the symantics of a method are not boun 1000 d to its name, so much as they are bound to the interface the method belongs to.

Bruce responds with a followup article on Latent Typing, but I would like to add my two cents here.

Java interfaces are more about syntax than semantics. They insure that implementing classes have the proper methods defined with the proper number and type of arguments, and that the methods actually do return a value of the appropriate type. But that’s it. Interfaces do nothing to support any meaningful semantics about the methods.

If you are interested in language support for semantics, I suggest you take a look at Eiffel. When you define a interface in Eiffel (which Eiffel would call a deferred class), you not only specify the argument list for the method, you also specify the promises to which the method implementor must adhere. This set of promises (the semantics) is called a contract and leads to the concept of Design by Contract.

Even if you never program a line of Eiffel code, understanding Design by Contract is a useful skill for a developer.

Speaking of Design by Contract

And that leads us to our final posting. Artima has published a series of interviews with Bertrand Meyer, the designer of Eiffel and Design by Contract. The interviews are worth reading (here is part 4, you can find links to the other parts from there).

I find that I don’t always agree with Meyer, but when I do disagree, I think through my position very carefully.

All for Now

I’ve run out of time. Hopefully it won’t be so long before I post again.