Dave-
could you give us an example of over-using a weak abstraction ?
Martin-
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Newton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Struts Users Mailing List" <user@struts.apache.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 2:19 PM
Subject: Re: [OT] Business Layer Ideas
Frank W. Zammetti wrote:
Related to this, patterns are a wonderful invention, but I see day in and
day out people trying to find a pattern for every single situation. People
seem to think that they have to solve every problem by finding a
suitable pattern. The problem is, everyone seems to be so
"pattern-gung-ho" nowadays that they simply want to apply a pattern and if
it actually makes things more complex, too bad. If it doesn't really fit
the problem but does happen to solve it, that's fine too. A pattern
mismatch, or a pattern where none was truly needed, is just as bad as no
pattern at all in my experience.
"This practice is not only common, but institutionalized. For example, in
the OO world you hear a good deal about "patterns". I wonder if these
patterns are not sometimes evidence of case (c), the human compiler, at
work. When I see patterns in my programs, I consider it a sign of trouble.
The shape of a program should reflect only the problem it needs to solve.
Any other regularity in the code is a sign, to me at least, that I'm using
abstractions that aren't powerful enough-- often that I'm generating by
hand the expansions of some macro that I need to write." -- Paul Graham
Dave "No, really, he's not a cult" Newton
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
