CLOSE FULL VIEW
Engineering(,) A Path to Science: "I don't want to die in a language I can't understand"
Recorded at:
Community comments
Interesting general point - not sure on the specifics
by
Paul Beckford
Posted
Interesting general point - not sure on the specifics
by
Paul Beckford
Gilads paper was my intro to Mixins and this talk prompted me to go back and take another look:
citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1...
To be fair to Gilad and Cook, the criticisms made of the CLOS approach is that you need to know all the Mixins in the hierarchy and how they will be linearised to use the approach reliably. So perhaps it is a modular approach, but it comes with an extensive cognitive load and it does break encapsuation. You need to fully understand the workings of all of the "the system" bits to use it.
The point about khunian paradigm shifts and incommensurebility is well made however. Who is to judge? Without extensive hands-on experience with these differing approaches who can say which is more reliable or not? To some degree it is subjective.
Unlike the physical sciences we have no external world to test our hypothesis against. Software creation happens in the mind and what is an effective approach for one person may prove a nightmare for another. Cognitive bias reins supreme!
You can see this with the recent adoption of dynamic languages. With static language programmers having to gradually overcoming their initial bias.
Btw. Modern day Mixins in a language like Ruby break encapsulation too, so perhaps Richard has a point :)
Great content InfoQ. More of this please!!
citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1...
To be fair to Gilad and Cook, the criticisms made of the CLOS approach is that you need to know all the Mixins in the hierarchy and how they will be linearised to use the approach reliably. So perhaps it is a modular approach, but it comes with an extensive cognitive load and it does break encapsuation. You need to fully understand the workings of all of the "the system" bits to use it.
The point about khunian paradigm shifts and incommensurebility is well made however. Who is to judge? Without extensive hands-on experience with these differing approaches who can say which is more reliable or not? To some degree it is subjective.
Unlike the physical sciences we have no external world to test our hypothesis against. Software creation happens in the mind and what is an effective approach for one person may prove a nightmare for another. Cognitive bias reins supreme!
You can see this with the recent adoption of dynamic languages. With static language programmers having to gradually overcoming their initial bias.
Btw. Modern day Mixins in a language like Ruby break encapsulation too, so perhaps Richard has a point :)
Great content InfoQ. More of this please!!




Hello stranger!
You need to Register an InfoQ account or Login to post comments. But there's so much more behind being registered.Get the most out of the InfoQ experience.
Tell us what you think