Re: Migrating a system incrementally. Was: Re: Static vs. Dynamic typing (big advantage or not)---WAS: c.programming: OOP
From: Chris Uppal (chris.uppal_at_metagnostic.REMOVE-THIS.org)
Date: 07/15/04
- Next message: John Hanley: "Re: pointers to structs"
- Previous message: Phlip: "Re: Rework [Was: Static vs. Dynamic typing...]"
- In reply to: Robert C. Martin: "Migrating a system incrementally. Was: Re: Static vs. Dynamic typing (big advantage or not)---WAS: c.programming: OOP"
- Next in thread: Phlip: "Re: Migrating a system incrementally. Was: Re: Static vs. Dynamic typing"
- Reply: Phlip: "Re: Migrating a system incrementally. Was: Re: Static vs. Dynamic typing"
- Reply: Alan Balmer: "Re: Migrating a system incrementally. Was: Re: Static vs. Dynamic typing (big advantage or not)---WAS: c.programming: OOP"
- Reply: Ilja Preuß: "Re: Migrating a system incrementally. Was: Re: Static vs. Dynamic typing (big advantage or not)---WAS: c.programming: OOP"
- Reply: Ilja Preuß: "Re: Migrating a system incrementally. Was: Re: Static vs. Dynamic typing (big advantage or not)---WAS: c.programming: OOP"
- Reply: Robert C. Martin: "Re: Migrating a system incrementally. Was: Re: Static vs. Dynamic typing (big advantage or not)---WAS: c.programming: OOP"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 18:55:32 +0100
Robert C. Martin wrote:
> The benefits to taking this approach should be obvious.
>
> 1. You don't break the system.
> 2. You get data on your new approach before you are done with it.
> 3. The process can be interrupted and later resumed.
> 4. You can change course mid stream.
> 5. You *always* know the current state of the system.
> 6. Everybody else *always* knows the state of the system.
> 7. You are never on the critical path.
But surely you are also spending a lot of time with the system in a state that
no sane programmer would ever have chosen ? If so then (3), (4), (5), and (6)
are all moot.
Come to that, I don't see why (7) follows.
(2) seems dubious too...
Which leaves (1) unchallenged -- can you explain what the actual value to me of
(1) is ?
-- chris
- Next message: John Hanley: "Re: pointers to structs"
- Previous message: Phlip: "Re: Rework [Was: Static vs. Dynamic typing...]"
- In reply to: Robert C. Martin: "Migrating a system incrementally. Was: Re: Static vs. Dynamic typing (big advantage or not)---WAS: c.programming: OOP"
- Next in thread: Phlip: "Re: Migrating a system incrementally. Was: Re: Static vs. Dynamic typing"
- Reply: Phlip: "Re: Migrating a system incrementally. Was: Re: Static vs. Dynamic typing"
- Reply: Alan Balmer: "Re: Migrating a system incrementally. Was: Re: Static vs. Dynamic typing (big advantage or not)---WAS: c.programming: OOP"
- Reply: Ilja Preuß: "Re: Migrating a system incrementally. Was: Re: Static vs. Dynamic typing (big advantage or not)---WAS: c.programming: OOP"
- Reply: Ilja Preuß: "Re: Migrating a system incrementally. Was: Re: Static vs. Dynamic typing (big advantage or not)---WAS: c.programming: OOP"
- Reply: Robert C. Martin: "Re: Migrating a system incrementally. Was: Re: Static vs. Dynamic typing (big advantage or not)---WAS: c.programming: OOP"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|