Drew McCormack <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> For example, my 1500 lines of fortran 77 quickly became 2500 lines of
> fortran 90, due to structuring of data and explicit typing, even
> without accessor methods. Luckily I found many cases of duplicated
> functionality which I could remove, meaning the fortran 90 was only a
> little longer than the f77. If I had added accessor methods, I think
> there would have been another 500 lines at least, and the code would
> have been slower.
Did every one of your abstractions need to be represented by procedures?
The point of my message <[log in to unmask]>
was that you don't need to write the accessors until you decide that
the abstractions can't be represented as components, i.e., not until
you need to represent them with the equivalent of C# get/put functions/
updaters. Until then, you don't need the one-liners that bulk up the
code, increasing development and maintenance costs, and slowing things
down. To achieve this, uniform syntax of reference is crucial. Updaters
on their own aren't useful unless they have the same syntax of reference
as would the abstractions they implement if they were represented as data
objects.
--
Van Snyder | What fraction of Americans believe
[log in to unmask] | Wrestling is real and NASA is fake?
Any alleged opinions are my own and have not been approved or disapproved
by JPL, CalTech, NASA, Sean O'Keefe, George Bush, the Pope, or anybody else.
|