Geoff Canyon wrote: > There are a myriad of products that offer the kind of reuse I'm talking about > to greater or lesser extents. The key (to me) is the clear division between > "code to be reused" and "code that uses the reusable code." > > Code reuse is never easier than when the reusable code is a self-contained > black box, with perfectly clear interfaces because otherwise you wouldn't be > able to use it. This division is crystal clear in many products, the xCards > among them. It is less so in some other products such as Java, where the > interface widgets are mostly encapsulated, but the code provided is not. > > So where _does_ iShell fall in that spectrum?
Well, I'm not sure. It may be that iShell and its somewhat unique approach falls slightly outside the spectrum as defined. The real point I was making was that I DO agree that some programs have more portable code than others, but that iShell takes portable code to entirely new levels. But this applies principally to "your code", not so much code that is running as part of the IDE, if that's what you are referring to. While iShell is indeed written in the same language that it gives you access to, it does generally prevent you from using the "code behind the code". I don't know, perhaps the "crystal clarity" you refer to is only observed by those more indoctrinated in the IDE details to a higher level than I. Incidentally, I pretty well agree with your grouping of product types, too. ;) -- Troy RPSystems www.rpsystems.net
