Path: news.daimi.aau.dk!news.uni-c.dk!sunic!sunic.sunet.se!seunet!news2.swip.net!plug.news.pipex.net!pipex!soap.news.pipex.net!pipex!dish.news.pipex.net!pipex!demon!galacta.demon.co.uk!rartym From: "Dr. Rich Artym" Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.lang.beta,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.python,comp.lang.sather,comp.lang.smalltalk Subject: Re: Rapid Prototyping + statically-typed OOPLs? Date: Thu, 13 Jul 95 12:59:21 GMT Organization: Galacta Institute for Computer Rights Lines: 54 Message-ID: <805640361snz@galacta.demon.co.uk> References: <805548287snz@galacta.demon.co.uk> <3u0tan$gj5@News1.mcs.net> Reply-To: rich@galacta.demon.co.uk X-NNTP-Posting-Host: galacta.demon.co.uk X-Newsreader: Demon Internet Simple News v1.29 Xref: news.daimi.aau.dk comp.object:33448 comp.lang.beta:454 comp.lang.c++:128817 comp.lang.eiffel:9213 comp.lang.python:4999 comp.lang.sather:1921 comp.lang.smalltalk:24344 In article <3u0tan$gj5@News1.mcs.net> jim.fleming@bytes.com "Jim Fleming" writes: > [snip] > It is interesting that some of the most productive people used the "troff > model" because they were more familiar with the tools from that era. > New developers, find the "gui model" to be the way to go. > > There is room for both approaches...just keep in mind that Rapid > Prototyping does not have to imply GUI interface...it should imply that > productivity is improved and that the system is used to replace human > brain power...with dynamic languages like C+@ and Smalltalk...the > system is used as part of the development process from start to finish... > reuse is encouraged and is part of the Rapid Prototyping process... Yes, I agree. It's a tangled web of interacting issues, and the reasons for success or failure are difficult to disentangle in practice. For instance, everyone knows (:-) that "Smalltalk is good for R.P.", but I suspect that if Smalltalk developers had to struggle with a commandline interface and a traditional edit/build/run/debug cycle then the language itself would be perceived as being a lot less useful for this purpose. In posing my question, I tried to be specific to the effect of static typing in OO programming languages, independent of the systems within which they are used. It is possible, at least in concept, to provide equivalent graphical and highly interactive development environments whatever the OOPL, irrespective of their radically different underlying implementations, and on such a hypothetical level playing field the pros and cons of static typing as a factor in Rapid Prototyping would be simple to identify. In the absence of a level playing field it is much more difficult to be sure of the right answer, but it helps a lot if one can look at the experiences of many software developers before reaching a tentative conclusion. In particular, I am hoping that the very wide use of C++ (and less so, of Eiffel) will elicit some feedback here with regard to their successful use (or otherwise) for Rapid Prototyping, even if this term is not used. When classes are changing left, right and centre, with varying parental relationships (or none?) and with almost zero stability of app-domain interfaces, does experience show that we can still put the advantages of static typing to good use? Since development environments for these languages seem to be getting better all the time, it's a question that holds a lot of interest for anyone contemplating using an R.P. approach. ########### Dr. Rich Artym ================ PGP public key available # galacta # Internet: rich@galacta.demon.co.uk DNS 158.152.156.137 # ->demon # rich@mail.g7exm[.uk].ampr.org DNS 44.131.164.1 # ->ampr # NTS/BBS : g7exm@gb7msw.#33.gbr.eu # ->nexus # Fun : Unix, X, TCP/IP, OSI, kernel, O-O, C++, Soft/Eng # ->NTS # More fun: Regional IP Coordinator Hertfordshire + N.London ########### Q'Quote : "Object type is a detail of its implementation."