Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> comp.databases.theory -> Re: Just for the record

Re: Just for the record

From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 19:02:16 GMT
Message-ID: <YmAog.3386$pu3.82117@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>


erk wrote:
> Bob Badour wrote:
>

>>Marshall wrote:
>>
>>>Well, I've been trying to figure out what specifically you're referring
>>>to, and I'm not having much luck. The author(s) you mention seem
>>>to be associated with Aspect Oriented Programming, which, although
>>>I have no particular reason to think it worth my attention, nonetheless
>>>has not (as far as I know) *redefined* any terms, but rather seems
>>>to have made up their own terms. But perhaps terms such as
>>>"aspects" and "cross cutting" had an earlier meaning I was not
>>>aware of? Or perhaps I'm just missing your direction entirely.
>>
>>I am particularly disgusted by their perversion of Dijkstra's
>>intellectual discipline of separating of concerns.

>
> Agreed, and having worked in Lisp's Meta Object Protocol (MOP),
> Kiczales should know much better. While MOP and Lisp are far from
> perfect, their support for metaprogramming doesn't require anything
> near the intellectual mutilations required to cram these "concepts"
> into Java.
>
> I'd like to hear more, though - is there a particular EWD that got you
> thinking about this?

Check out the discussion pages on wikipedia for "Concern" and "Separation of concerns" Received on Wed Jun 28 2006 - 14:02:16 CDT

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US