[osflash] Share the knowledge: Books

[Johannes Nel]

code complete is prob one of the best books on design (not patterns) i have
ever read. is the latest version even better than the old one?

On 11/10/05, Austin Haas <austin at pettomato.com> wrote:
>
> I think that all Nicolasse was saying is that in other languages, such
> as Ocaml and Lisp, "Design Patterns" is not an especially relevant book.
> I mean no offense at all, but it sounds like you aren't very familiar
> with these other types of languages to see why this is so. Correct me if
> I am wrong.
>
> Peter Norvig, addressing this topic says, "Dynamic Languages have fewer
> language limitations. Less need for bookkeeping objects and classes.
> Less need to get around class-restricted design."
> (http://www.norvig.com/design-patterns/ppframe.htm)
>
> I also want to second some of the books that others have mentioned, and
> add my own:
>
> 1. "Code Complete" -- it's been a while since I read this one, but if we
> were hiring, I would make it a mandatory read.
>
> 2. "Pragmatic Programmer" -- great advice about automating everything
> you do, and why Actionscripters really need to learn an additional
> language.
>
> 3. "Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs" -- videos based
> on the book here:
> http://swiss.csail.mit.edu/classes/6.001/abelson-sussman-lectures/
>
> -austin
>
> Austin Haas
> Pet Tomato, Inc.
> http://www.pettomato.com
>
> The Irrelevant Elephant wrote:
> > Nicolas Cannasse wrote:
> > <loads of stuff I didn't particularly agree with ;-)>
> >
> > I thought I'd try to thrash this out a little. I'm really still
> > learning about patterns and how to apply them to my software most
> > effectively, and whilst I can understand your queries; I can't fathom
> > the source of the belligerence. It's obvious that you aren't a big fan
> > of OO development, however I think you're a bit keen to "throw the baby
> > out with the water". Or maybe you're just bitter that few people here
> > are bothered with functional programming ;-)
> >
> >
> >>I don't know exactly what I should think about Design Patterns. It's
> >>true they're in general good solutions to model the problems in a
> >>classic OO language with inheritance, but they are not so much useful in
> >>other kind of languages (for exemple Functional ones). This is mainly
> >>due to the fact that OO creates its own set of problems that are only
> >>partly answered by using Design Patterns.
> >
> >
> > This is the kind of thing I'm talking about ;-) Of course any style of
> > development spawns it's own "problems" (for want of a better word);
> > however patterns are /not/ "a mechanism to circumvent problems caused by
> > OOP". I can only assume you haven't read /that/ much into patterns as
> > inheritance features much less than other techniques, composition for
> > example.
> >
> >
> >>The need for the programmer to constantly reuse these patterns create
> >>the "code bloat" pattern, also sometimes called the "Java disease" :)
> >>It's when your code grows faster in complexity and number of
> >>abstractions than it grows in number of features.
> >
> >
> > I guess you've had a bad experience then? Part of the trick to using
> > patterns effectively is also (a) deciding if you need to use a pattern
> > at all and (b) learning to apply patterns to particular "problems" in
> > your software (rather than blindly building your software around
> patterns).
> >
> >
> >>I guess that a better programming language should embed the most often
> >>used patterns so they become a lot more natural to use (for instance you
> >>will not have to learn them).
> >
> >
> > Maybe in some respects, but patterns aren't meant to be concrete
> > implementations. That's kinda the whole point. Obviously a
> > language/platform can provide support for certain patterns (for example,
> > providing support for the commonly used Observer/Observable pattern) -
> > but it would be wrong for a language to assume responsibility of the
> > implementation of patterns at large.
> >
> >
> >>However I still think that OO design patterns are useful since they can
> >>bring some common vocabulary and methology where before everybody was
> >>using its own way of encoding objects relationships.
> >
> >
> > Yes, this is indeed another reason patterns are useful. My business
> > partners are not developers; one is a designer and one is a
> > part-developer-mostly-designer - but we can (and do) talk using a common
> > vocabulary. Because we have also adapted the use of CRC cards
> > (http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?CrcCard) into our development process, we can
> > also identify patterns whilst our cards are laid out on the floor,
> > before we even start cutting code.
> >
> > Horses for courses.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > osflash mailing list
> > osflash at osflash.org
> > http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> osflash mailing list
> osflash at osflash.org
> http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org
>



--
j:pn
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://osflash.org/pipermail/osflash_osflash.org/attachments/20051110/74ae73f0/attachment.htm