Category:Phix: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
(100% note) |
No edit summary |
||
Line 2:
|exec=both
|site=http://phix.x10.mx
|gc=yes
|parampass=both
|express=explicit
Line 34:
Phix supports object orientation, but does not enforce it, and can achieve many of the claimed benefits in a much simpler way. In fact I have been looking for <i><b>proof</b></i> that object orientation actually improves productivity compared to other paradigms for decades, and never found it. One other thing I have never found is a "good object orientated design", and reached the conclusion that mythical creature simply does not exist, at least not as a separate entity as opposed to some ethereal quality of the finished code. Feel free to argue that one on [[User_talk:Petelomax]]. Phix offers perfectly decent encapsulation at the file level, proving that is not the sole purview of oo, implements polymorphism far more elegantly than C-based languages and far safer than duck-typed languages, and as for the third pillar of oop, inheritance, well isn't the current mantra "favour composition over inheritance"?
Technically Phix does not have a garbage collector, instead it is reference counted, so memory is automatically reclaimed whenever a reference count drops to zero, and hence there are no sudden pauses, although the reference counting can itself reduce performance.
The fundamental goal of Phix is to make debugging easier, a whole subject area that does not seem to get the attention it deserves, despite several studies finding that most programmers actually spend between 70 and 90% of their time debugging. Most of us tend to think that getting just-written code to work is somehow not debugging, but that bloke with a clipboard stood behind you would disagree.
| |||