Kent Starr says:
>While complexity theory has been >around since the 70's (some would say off and on since the time of the >Egyptians) but was not widely known outside of very tight academic >circles before the mid-90's.
Hmm. As it turns out, I keep finding out about more and more neat
theories that aren’t currently well known. Odds are I’ll be embarassed
by one of those twenty years from now
>> I think that's a load of crap; exposing native types as non-objects >> in Java, for instance, is to me one the largest failings of that language. >> > >Unfortunately, it is worse than just a "mere load of crap"
Well, I was trying to be being polite…
>had to replace their Java-based e-commerce solution in order to >efficiently scale up. (My contact solved their problem with perl/MySQL.)
Interesting. What was the specific issue that killed them? In other
words, was it badly written Java, or just the fact that it was Java?
>I suspect, as time unfolds many more such issues will arise, especially >regarding maintainability.
Unfortunately, I agree. Maintainability is one of those dark subjects
that no one wants to talk about. Dave and I were part of an OOPSLA
workshop last year on Software Archeology that talked around those
issues; this year Brian Marick has asked us back to talk about
Software For Life. It’s an interesting and underappreciated subject,
but as you note, I suspect that will change in time as well.
>OO isn't taught well IMO. "Pickaxe" is a rare exception.
>The irony is >that Ruby is closely modelled in accordance with contemporary thinking >in modern theoretical physics where everything -is- an object (in >concept, not necessarily name). The physical world in which we live is >de facto Rubyesque. :-)
Ha ha! I love it! God is a Ruby programmer, after all