On 14/10/2010, at 4:50 PM, K. K. Subramaniam wrote:
On Monday 11 Oct 2010 7:56:02 am Julian Leviston wrote:
I think this is better off baked in because it would encourage programmers
(users of the language) to write down what they intend to do before they
do it. Something most people do
- Original Message -
From: Julian Leviston jul...@leviston.net
To: Fundamentals of New Computing fonc@vpri.org
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 9:13 PM
Subject: Re: [fonc] Spec-Driven Self-Testing Code
On 11/10/2010, at 12:24 PM, BGB wrote:
--
Does anyone know about a language
On Thursday 14 Oct 2010 11:30:44 am Julian Leviston wrote:
Executable documentation coupled with behavioural testing baked in is what
I'm after. ie the code won't actually execute without a checksum existing
first that indicates that the test suite has been run across this code.
Your
On 14/10/2010, at 5:56 PM, K. K. Subramaniam wrote:
On Thursday 14 Oct 2010 11:30:44 am Julian Leviston wrote:
Executable documentation coupled with behavioural testing baked in is what
I'm after. ie the code won't actually execute without a checksum existing
first that indicates that the
I have to wonder how things might be different if someone had made a tiny,
free, scriptable Smalltalk for unix before Perl appeared...
BTW, there were rumors that Sun considered using Smalltalk in browsers instead
of Java but the license fees from the vendors were too high. Anyone know if
I saw Paul Fernhout mention this once on /.
http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1578224cid=31429692
He linked to: http://fargoagile.com/joomla/content/view/15/26/
which references:
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2006-December/112337.html
which states:
When I
On 2010/10/15, at 00:14 , Steve Dekorte wrote:
I have to wonder how things might be different if someone had made a
tiny, free, scriptable Smalltalk for unix before Perl appeared...
There has been GNU smalltalk for a long time, AFAIR before perl, which
was quite adapted to the unix
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 6:51 PM, John Zabroski johnzabro...@gmail.comwrote:
That being said, I have no idea why people think Smalltalk-80 would have
been uniformly better than Java. I am not saying this to be negative. In
my view, much of the biggest mistakes with Java were requiring insane
Pascal J. Bourguignon wrote:
No idea, but since they invented Java, they could have at a much lower
cost written their own implementation of Smalltalk.
or two (Self and Strongtalk).
Of course, Self had to be killed in favor of Java since Java ran in just
a few kilobytes while Self needed a
Wow! Thanks for that amazing nugget of Internet history.
Fun fact: Tony Duarte wrote the book Writing NeXT Programs under the
pseudonym Ann Weintz because supposedly Steve Jobs was so secretive that he
told employees not to write books about the ideas in NeXT's GUI. See:
I'd say the biggest problem is more in the selection than generation /
mutation. In the world, it's easy to determine the winner - he passes on
more of his genes. But if we've got two potential solutions, neither of
which actually pass the test, how do we select which to continue mutating,
and
On 15/10/2010, at 12:20 PM, Casey Ransberger wrote:
The previous thread about testing got me thinking about this again. One of
the biggest problems I have in the large with getting developers to write
tests is the burden of maintaining the tests when the code changes.
I have this wacky
On 14 October 2010 21:20, Casey Ransberger casey.obrie...@gmail.com wrote:
The previous thread about testing got me thinking about this again. One of
the biggest problems I have in the large with getting developers to write
tests is the burden of maintaining the tests when the code changes.
13 matches
Mail list logo
