MigMit <miguelim...@yandex.ru> wrote: >On Jan 1, 2013, at 10:23 PM, Никитин Лев <leon.v.niki...@pravmail.ru> >wrote: >> Eiffel, for my opinion, is a best OOP language. Meyer use a >theoretical approach as it is possible in OOP. >Really? Because when I studied it I had a very different impression: >that behind this language there was no theory at all. And it's only >feature I remember that is not present in mainstream languages is it's >pre/postconditions system, which looked like an ugly hack for me.
I agree with Leon. Of course, I learned it out of OOSC2, which provides the theory. When compared to "mainstream" OO languages like C++, Java or Python, it's on a much solider theoretical basis. Compared to something like Scheme, Haskell or even Clojure, maybe not so much. On the other hand, one persons theory is another persons hack. The theory behind the pre/post conditions is "Design by Contract". The contracts are as important as the type signature, and show up in the auto-generated docs in eiffel systems. I found at least one attempt to add DbC features to Haskell. I'm not sold on it as a programming technique - the bugs it uncovers are as likely to be in the pre/post conditions as in the code. -- Sent from my Android tablet with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my swyping. _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
