xml-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From James Duncan Davidson <james.david...@eng.sun.com>
Subject Re: [spinnaker] Announce
Date Wed, 12 Jul 2000 00:55:07 GMT
on 7/11/00 5:22 PM, Arved Sandstrom at Arved_37@chebucto.ns.ca wrote:

> I don't buy that argument. I can think of a number of situations where we have
> to take implementation into account at high-level design time; I don't think
> this is one of them.
> It would be a mistake to accord Java some paramount status here. Not everyone
> (myself included) is enthralled with it. Let's push for high-level designs
> that can accommodate any OO language; if the first implementation happens to
> be Java so be it.

I agree with part of this -- Java isn't paramount. It's a language that's
different than C++. We can take princples, goals, and even a *bit* of
thought between the two.

But let's not have naming conventions, class names, and method names the
same :) And let's not design for direct ports of one to the other. That's


View raw message