[prev] [thread] [next] [lurker] [Date index for 2006/12/27]
On Wed, Dec 27, 2006 at 06:02:20AM -0800, jrodman@xxxx.xxxxxxxxxx.xxx wrote:
> When I tried Portable.Net, it was FILLED with classes and
> implmentations which could not ever have worked. Things like an object
> with an update function that overwrites your data instead of the
> object's data. Good times. It was also slow enough to fall into the
> Python category, which is okay for some tasks, but Python is way more
> productive and portable, so it didn't seem worthwhile to use
> Portable.Net at the time.
I don't think I've made this clear enough so imagine the following:
StringClass default_pie_name = StringClass("Apple Pie");
print(default_pie_name);
==> Apple Pie
String my_pie = "Blueberry Pie";
default_pie_name.Update(my_pie);
print(StringClass);
==> Apple Pie
print(my_pie);
==> Apple Pie
Now imagine StringClass is some non-avoidable .Net class, and imagine
this is the only way of changing its contents. And imagine the
implementation is hundreds of lines long and it is clear no one has ever
tested it.
Becuse that's how it was.
-josh
There's stuff above here
Generated at 03:02 on 01 Jan 2007 by mariachi 0.52