Prism Rationale, Part 2
Mon, 4 Jan 1999 23:12:40 -0800
On Mon, Jan 04, 1999 at 10:17:10PM -0700, Jim Little wrote:
> * Semantic errors may be reduced by using a programmable system whose
> semantics are as close as possible to the semantics of the problem
> In other words, DON'T USE ASSEMBLY LANGUAGE TO QUERY A DATABASE! :)
> Use SQL. Or, more simply, "Use the right tool for the job." If you
> don't, you'll deserve the bugs you'll get.
> I call this philosophy "Paradigm-Independent Software Engineering"
> (PISE). The idea is that no one programming technique, be it
> object-oriented programming, functional programming, or even spaghetti
> programming :), is the right tool for every job. But they're all the
> right tool for some jobs (yes, even spaghetti programming... um, maybe).
I think there is definetly a related issue, where within a given
language, there are different (traditionally syntactic) paradigms
going on. For example, in C, do you call a function or access an
array? In higher-level languages like smalltalk/self they homogonized
all actions into 'method calls/message sends'. However, then the
different paradigms are different protocols/collections of
methods. For example, do you use an array index type access pattern
(i.e. a->itemAt(1);) or do you use a linked-list access pattern?
It's often the case that you have a body of code which uses one access
pattern, but you'd like to store the data in another (usually
superior) access pattern because you want to add some functionality.
David Jeske (N9LCA) + http://www.chat.net/~jeske/ + firstname.lastname@example.org