From: Dean Michael Berris (mikhailberis_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-09-15 16:04:58
On 9/15/06, Joel de Guzman <joel_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> But why would a layperson have to read pseudo-english embedded in
> arcane C++ when she can read the documentation? IMO, (sorry Dean)
> all this hoopla is just an elaborate excuse not to write proper
> detailed documentation.
Yes, having someone else read pseud-english in C++ is a bit too much
to ask. But for the programmers' sake, reading something that's meant
to be a specification and use it as such in code might be helpful. At
least I seem to think it is. ;-)
> IMO, programs that end up overly complex
> and rife with potential error stems from the lack of documentation
> and design discipline. Code goes haywire and get into a tangled
> mess, and hence become unreadable in the process. It does not start
> from unreadable code, it starts from lack of, inadequate, or
> improper documentation.
Indeed. But documentation aside, the same reason why we have unit
tests is to test whether a system is within specification. This
approach is just yet another way of specifing expected behavior, using
a closer to english language.
At least, this is the aim of the spec library anyway. :-)
-- Dean Michael C. Berris C++ Software Architect Orange and Bronze Software Labs, Ltd. Co. web: http://software.orangeandbronze.com/ email: dean_at_[hidden] mobile: +63 928 7291459 phone: +63 2 8943415 other: +1 408 4049532 blogs: http://mikhailberis.blogspot.com http://3w-agility.blogspot.com http://cplusplus-soup.blogspot.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk