Re: The design is the code?
From: Shayne Wissler (thalesNOSPAM000_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 03/15/05
- Next message: iamfractal_at_hotmail.com: "Re: OO vs. RDB challenge"
- Previous message: Shayne Wissler: "Re: The design is the code?"
- Maybe in reply to: quantdev2004_at_yahoo.co.uk: "The design is the code?"
- Next in thread: Lurker: "Re: The design is the code?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 09:38:11 -0700
"bruno modulix" <onurb@xiludom.gro> wrote in message
news:4236b688$0$12694$626a14ce@news.free.fr...
>>>I contend that the distinction you draw is completely arbitrary - if a
>>>developer refactors a couple of classes in the design diagram in order
>>>to code them, at exactly which juncture does he stop dealing in intent
>>>and start dealing with precise instructions ?.
>>
>> Be clear here about what you're calling arbitrary. It sounds like you're
>> saying that the distinction between a plan, intention, and guide, is
>> identical to the completed thing.
>
> I think the point that you're missing is that (at least according to Jack
> Reeves) the source code is *not* the completed thing. The completed thing
> is the program running - <snip>
Well, no, I wouldn't miss such a trivial point.
> From this POV, the source code is still design.
No, I think the source code is the source code.
See my other post.
Shayne Wissler
http://www.thoughtsonsoftware.com
- Next message: iamfractal_at_hotmail.com: "Re: OO vs. RDB challenge"
- Previous message: Shayne Wissler: "Re: The design is the code?"
- Maybe in reply to: quantdev2004_at_yahoo.co.uk: "The design is the code?"
- Next in thread: Lurker: "Re: The design is the code?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|