On Tue, 19 Oct 2010, Igor Stasenko wrote:
On 19 October 2010 00:25, Levente Uzonyi <[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, 18 Oct 2010, Igor Stasenko wrote:
Stephane, i could say more:
- i don't like how LinkedList implemented.
I don't see why it should mimic things like #at: #at:put: at all..
It's not mimicing those methods. A list usually support things like this,
but the user should know the consequences.
The consequences of such approach is much more far-reaching: leads to
bad design practices, crappy application performance,
and then tons of bugs and workarounds.
Are programmers idiots? If not, then we shouldn't treat them like idiots.
IMO this protocol should be pruned from it, to not provoke uses which
completely do not fit for given data structure.
I'm not sure if it's okay to remove features, because users lacking really
basic CS knowledge may use them the wrong way.
Imo, we should prohibit this from the beginning. Standard, core
classes should not contain an API, which could lead to
careless, abusive programming techniques.
So we should get rid of SortedCollection, remove #includes: #indexOf: from
ArrayedCollections, get rid of OrderedCollection >> #remove:, etc. Am I
right?
IMO, a kernel APIs should serve not only as an implementation of basic
system funcionality, it also must serve as guide,
how to best use these facilities, so people will learn what is the
right way to use it.
That's right, but there's no need to remove useful features to achieve
this.
We should teach users to use right tools for things they need.
Removing/inserting into the middle of list is quite ineffective
operation (O(n)),
As long as you don't give away the link objects, it's O(n), otherwise it can
be O(1).
giving away link objects... oh, that's the worst thing, which could
possibly happen :)
No. It's the user's responsibility to use it wisely. If you don't need to
access a internal nodes, just adding/removing elements to/from the list,
then you probably shouldn't use a list at all.
while inserting at the begginning/end of list is O(1).
Lists are sequenceable.. but sequenceable ~~ indexable. Period.
Sequenceable is indexable, but good performance is not guaranteed.
Unless you representing an infinite collection(s).
Streams are good example of sequenceable, however non-indexable containers.
Streams are more like external iterators, than containers IMHO. But you
can get/set the position of most streams.
Levente
Levente
--
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
--
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
