Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?
Russ.Paielli at gmail.com
Wed Jan 14 19:32:47 CET 2009
On Jan 14, 1:54 am, Carl Banks <pavlovevide... at gmail.com> wrote:
> I thought you were done wasting time with this nonsense.
So did I.
> > An engine *simulation* is one
> > thing; the actual engine control code is another.
> Guess what systems I worked on that didn't even use scoping? I wrote
> code for the GP7000 (equipped on some Airbus 380s) and the F-136
> (which will be equipped on some F-35 fighters) engine controllers.
> Neither one used any data hiding. The language was C (not C++), but
> it was generated from schematic diagrams.
> Would you like to adopt GE's practice of schematic-generated C with no
> namespaces or data hiding? No? Then don't be telling me I have to
> embrace Boeing's.
Well, that's interesting. But you say the code was "generated from
schematic diagrams." Does that mean it was automatically generated by
machine? If so, then the concerns about encapsulation may no longer
apply. In that case, the schematics were the implementation
"language," and the code that was generated was essentially a higher
level version of assembly or machine code (because humans don't work
with it directly).
I know some researchers in software engineering who believe that the
ultimate solution to software reliability is automatic code
generation. The don't really care much which language is used, because
it would only be an intermediate form that humans don't interact with
directly. In that scenario, humans would essentially use a "higher
level" language such as UML or some such thing.
I personally have a hard time seeing how that could work, but that may
just be due to be my own lack of understanding or vision.
More information about the Python-list