gump-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nicola Ken Barozzi <>
Subject Re: [gumpy] refactoring halfway
Date Tue, 29 Apr 2003 12:48:32 GMT

Sam Ruby wrote, On 29/04/2003 14.31:
> Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>> Sam Ruby wrote, On 29/04/2003 12.19:
>>> Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>> ...
>>> I still have a strong urge to make each class a separate file.  But 
>>> when an entire class is only a dozen lines or so, it does seem better 
>>> to group related classes together.
>> I'm *strongly* against making each class a separate file. IMNSHO 
>> having the Gump OM in a single file is very important for 
>> understanding the code.
> You will find that there are few implementation details that I am 
> strongly for or against.  

;-) I have strong feelings on this instead because I personally had 
difficulty in understanding the Java version, but understood the Python 
one almost immediately, and I fear it goes back to that ;-)

The fact is that separate classes seem to make me loose focus of the 
overall picture, dunno why. Probably it's just me.

> But I did invest a lot of time into building 
> support classes so that it would be possible to express the object 
> module so concisely and expressively.  And so far I am quite pleased 
> with the result.
> In Jenny, I opted for major groupings: Project, Workspace, Module, etc. 
>  In the Python version, so far this does not seem to be necessary.

I was and still am impressed by the Python version: I am quite sure that 
it's also due to using SAX instead of the DOM and because of Python's 
conciseness. Also the use of Single, Multi, etc is very intriguing.

Nicola Ken Barozzi         
             - verba volant, scripta manent -
    (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)

View raw message