2014-05-22 17:30 GMT+02:00 xen <[email protected]>: > Hi, thanks for your feedback on your own issue. > > > Correct, I'm lazy and I wanted to know if someone had this idea before me. >> > > Laziness is not a good starting point for something like this you know, > because it mostly means you're asking people to do things you could very > well do yourself for yourself. There is a fine line between asking for help > because it is the most effective way forward, and asking for help because > you can't be bothered to help yourself.... > > :) >> > > I'm basically insulting you and you're smiling in response? :P haha. > > > Yes, I thought to "mainstream" programming languages. >> > > Right. > > > In fact I thought to code reduction. >> For example, to highlight all the identifiers we have to handle the >> identifiers. Refactorings like inlining or extracting require handling the >> identifiers too, and so on. >> > > Okay I don't know exactly what you mean, maybe something like what > Facebook does to its Javascript code? They replace all occurrences of all > identifiers with the smallest possible replacements that are possible as a > matter of short strings being used. So if you examine their code, you will > not find anything other than "a" or "vx" variables and function names. You > can bet that's not how they wrote it, but they minimize the data > transmission in terms of JS code and CSS descriptors, all the while using > such elaborate automation schemes that the code that is left is still huge > beyond comparison. So all of their visible code is generated and packed and > extremely hard to debug by a user. You can't really see what it's doing so > you either have to use some real good debugging tools, or just watch the > network connections (GET queries) it tries to make as a result of that code > execution, if you want to analyse the page. > > > To have one mapping, one definition of refactorings, etc. >> For example, all the OOP refactorings work in OOP languages, why shall we >> reimplement them in each PL? >> My goal is to reduce the learning time, for example, if I learn a new OOP >> PL, I don't want to learn new bindings, I just want to learn how to code >> with it and I know that OOP Principles don't change. >> > > You are talking about VIM bindings for the plugins you use, right? So this > is only a personal goal right? So you are intending to spend an awful lot > of time developing a framework for yourself so that you can save time on > learning some new editor bindings every time you learn a new OOP > language?..... > > How often exactly do you intend to do that? I know I'm being inquisitive, > but I just want to help you become clear on what it is you want to do, and > not end up asking other people for help on something that would only be > valuable to you if someone else took the pain of actually doing it for > you.......... > > I mean it is perfectly fine to ask for help, but not on something that you > just want to be done FOR you so you can be a lazy ass mofo ;-). > > And I'm being this inquisitive because if someone else goes and helps you > while not understanding what you exactly want to do, it will not end up > helping you anyway. > > So get a grip on yourself! People don't learn a new programming language > every few weeks. /Not even you/ :D. The number of mainstream languages is > extremely limited and the number of native OOP languages even more so. > Like, there is OOP in PHP but it's not exactly the mother of OOP languages. > What I've seen of Python thus far doesn't seem like hugely OOP either. Then > there's Ruby, which is also an interpreted scripting language as far as I > know. Then you have the nearly deceased Java and what is left is > C++/C#/Objective C and all that stuff. > > OOP in PHP is particularly strange. PHP has these weird concepts of error > handling that I fail to grasp in their essence. I'm only familiar with > Wordpress but it serves a case. Most if not the vast majority of exposed > functions in Wordpress (all of it is exposed if it's not in an object) are > just plain functions that are suitably named to avoid namespace collisions. > All the error handling that exists seeems to be catered towards debugging > your code instead of handling proper fail protection. Then they provide a > OO layer if you want it, in case you want your code to be really user > friendly and reusable. Part of that extention is the thing called > "exceptions" which is neat and all but no native code uses it so you can > only use it as a wrapper around the core functions or (likely) your own low > level functions. So what it comes down to is that you end up manually > checking NULL conditions all over the place, which is tiring, more so when > a function can return both "NULL" and something else that evaluates to > false. And you *can* provide a seemingly-neat OO wrapper that does graceful > error handling (try, catch). But you will have to define every single > Exception class that you need if you require any differentiation. > > Then there is Python. Excellence par excellence in terms of graceful error > handling. I've never used it, yet, but that code is NEAT. I guess it is > very much OOP, don't know the scope of that yet. But very very different > from something like Java or C#. > > So all in all I really honestly believe that the goal of wanting to have > one-size-fits-all refactoring application or whatever is just an idle fancy > that you should let go off, and instead try to figure out what the real > thing is you want to achieve, which will be much easier to accomplish, I am > sure. > > It is a common experience of many tech helpers that people come to them > and ask about specific solutions that are vague and elaborate, when after a > while it turns out that the problem giver has skipped a few steps and > settled on a supposed "wanted" solution when it's not what he/she really > wanted after all. Meaning, perhaps you are being too specific in what you > want and you should backtrack and explain more of your feelings. > > Anyway, good luck. > > > Xen. > > -- > -- > You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist. > Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to. > For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php > > --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "vim_use" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >
I just wanted to know if this kind of abstraction was already implemented, it seems that it's not the case, no problem. I can try to do it, maybe fail, but the route one takes is more important than the destination. Thanks. -- -- You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist. Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_use" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
