Comments on: Talk Less, Do More

By: Martín René

Martín René — Fri, 08 May 2009 16:46:42 +0000

When you don’t have the accessors qualifier barrier, you can see a lot easier if you are making unnecessary coupling between two objects, you should be reversing the method call direction adding a method to transform the Item into something renderable by the user interface (or something in-between), when you have a get and set, you are only making your implementation public, thus coupling with everyone who uses the object, it’s just a little better than making everything public as you are at least giving a gateway for access.
I really like your blog
Saludos desde Argentina!

By: Software Artist » 2008 flashback

Software Artist » 2008 flashback — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 00:17:45 +0000

[...] time, I decided to keep it on my radar but focus on a more realistic alternative on a shorter term: Groovy/Grails. Now I’ve widened my technological scope beyond just JEE and AndroMDA, and I feel quite ready [...]

By: Sébastien

Sébastien — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 17:52:03 +0000

Of course the problem is between the keyboard and the chair. It’s always been there. And IMHO our jobs as software creators has always been to reduce the distance between the computer and the guy sitting in front of it.

Then you can reduce the distance from both sides, and both approaches are complementary, not mutually exclusive. As far as I’m concerned, I love it when technology takes care of boring and boilerplate stuff for me. It can’t take care of everything of course, but we’re still far from it, aren’t we?

By: Fabien Depasse

Fabien Depasse — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 17:36:51 +0000

I think the real problem with scripting languages is that there are not enough companies committed to train their developers to code well. In my opinion, if you have to rely on language features to enforce encapsulation, then the problem is between the keyboard and the chair.

Being able to change the mindset about software development training, learning path and expertise is, imho, a far better solution to the problem you are mentioning than throwing some technology at it.

By: Stephen Colebourne

Stephen Colebourne — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 01:30:11 +0000

As well as Groovy and Scala, the newest beyond Java language is Fan – http://fandev.org

Groovy moves from Java’s static type system to a dynamic one – fine if thats what you are looking for.

Scala moves from a focus on OO to a focus on functional programming – fine if thats what you are looking for.

Fan aims to hit that sweet spot of a pragmatic, evolution to Java – its one I’m keeping an eye on.

By: Hendry

Hendry — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 18:50:50 +0000

Try Boo! The wrist friendly dotNet language

By: brisssou

brisssou — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 15:37:59 +0000

What about code readability?

Ook! doesn’t seem too far.

By: Sébastien

Sébastien — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 08:10:26 +0000

I’ve done some functional programming in the past, not Scala but OCaml. And although I found it elegant, I never thought of it as a mainstream alternative because functions are not an intuitive way to model real-world problems. I’m not saying it’s not a good way, I’m just saying that it requires a special mindset.

On the other hand, Groovy seems much closer from what I’m looking for. The documentation is a bit messy, but I’ll give a try to “Groovy in action”.

By: Joseph Wofford

Joseph Wofford — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 06:36:57 +0000

Or try Scala: http://www.scala-lang.org/

OOP+Functional Programming
Static with Type Inference
Operators are methods so you can override them or define your own.
“{}”, “()”, “.” and “;” can frequently be omitted.
Simple property syntax.
Plus closures, traits, mixins, actors, etc.

By: trungsi

trungsi — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 17:04:43 +0000

Try Groovy. You will not be disappointed :)