[Gambas-user] C like #include for Gambas

[Jussi Lahtinen]

Bruce, please re-read. I'm against idea of #include being new keyword.

Jussi



On 9 June 2012 17:00, Bruce <bbruen at ...2308...> wrote:

> On Sat, 2012-06-09 at 13:51 +0100, jm wrote:
> > On Sat, 2012-06-09 at 02:45 +0300, Jussi Lahtinen wrote:
> > > Maybe I'm just too tired, but I don't understand the point.
>
> Jussi, maybe I'm just too old as well as tired, but I can't grasp the
> point of taking an object oriented language and trying to jam an old
> (albeit well tested) non-OO concept into it.
>
> Joe, I am having some degree of trouble really understanding your value
> proposition. Especially the last post (which I have snipped in entirety,
> sorry). All I can grasp from reading it several times is that you feel
> that #include has some productivity value in providing what we call
> inheritance and polymorphism.
>
> I am not trying to put you down but I really can't grasp the ideas of
> "thousands" of parameters and "hundreds" of initialisations.
>
> { We, here at paddys-hill have tens of clients (well a few tens anyway )
> that use a dozen or so applications, the code base encompasses around
> two hundred or so classes and modules organized into around thirty
> components and libraries.  The total code size is less than 25,000 lines
> and I would guess that probably 60% or more of that is comments. At a
> guess, the "largest" method calls would be 7 parameters, and they are
> just convenience calls to a class constructor.  By far the "largest"
> chunk of code is a library that downloads the text of around 40 web
> pages a day (about 40,000 text lines), parses them, normalises them and
> uploads them to the central database. I just checked and it's 6345 lines
> of code, so about 2400 working lines, which are mainly involved in text
> parsing (things like discerning "Mac Donald" and "MacDonald" or "Miss
> Jane O'Donnel" and "Ms Jan ODonnell" are the same names). The primary
> application that uses this library runs once a day and adds about 1200
> rows to a central postgresql database and can update anywhere between 2
> and 10,000 other rows.  It takes "about" 10 minutes.  The central
> database has just over 3.2 million rows, the clients each have a
> sub-mirrored database of who-knows-what size.}
>
> Anyway, I hope you can see from the above {} that those numbers you are
> using are fairly un-emotive to the reader.
>
> regards
> Bruce
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Live Security Virtual Conference
> Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
> threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
> will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
> threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
> _______________________________________________
> Gambas-user mailing list
> Gambas-user at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gambas-user
>