Talk:Aspect oriented programming: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
:: It's not very informational either. It doesn't say what AOP ''is'' or why you might want to do it, but at least it includes a long rambly example in C, a language which I'd have called inimical to AOP in the first place… I can't even tell if that's because they “get it” much ''more'' profoundly than me, or much ''less''. The evidence is consistent with both interpretations! –[[User:Dkf|Donal Fellows]] 23:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC) |
:: It's not very informational either. It doesn't say what AOP ''is'' or why you might want to do it, but at least it includes a long rambly example in C, a language which I'd have called inimical to AOP in the first place… I can't even tell if that's because they “get it” much ''more'' profoundly than me, or much ''less''. The evidence is consistent with both interpretations! –[[User:Dkf|Donal Fellows]] 23:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC) |
||
:::I only made a guess at intent. I can't say anything about the quality. I don't understand AOP very well either. If someone wanted to improve the info here that'd be great. --[[User:Mwn3d|Mwn3d]] 01:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC) |
:::I only made a guess at intent. I can't say anything about the quality. I don't understand AOP very well either. If someone wanted to improve the info here that'd be great. --[[User:Mwn3d|Mwn3d]] 01:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC) |
||
::::In my experience, AOP is an attempt to address the issues a person might want to address using a Domain Specific Language, but without the conciseness, nor the modularity (with strong lip-service to the concept of modularity, but what I have seen in implementations does not align with my feelings about modularity). Now, granted, the theory (MVC++) usually sounds great, but the examples I have seen (Observer++) have made me want a good DSL implementation. -- --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] 11:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 11:31, 10 June 2011
What is the task here? --Rdm 19:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- While it does have some code examples, I think this is supposed to be more of an informational page. It's not marked as a task, but it was made by an anonymous user who probably didn't know the process. --Mwn3d 20:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- It's not very informational either. It doesn't say what AOP is or why you might want to do it, but at least it includes a long rambly example in C, a language which I'd have called inimical to AOP in the first place… I can't even tell if that's because they “get it” much more profoundly than me, or much less. The evidence is consistent with both interpretations! –Donal Fellows 23:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- I only made a guess at intent. I can't say anything about the quality. I don't understand AOP very well either. If someone wanted to improve the info here that'd be great. --Mwn3d 01:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- In my experience, AOP is an attempt to address the issues a person might want to address using a Domain Specific Language, but without the conciseness, nor the modularity (with strong lip-service to the concept of modularity, but what I have seen in implementations does not align with my feelings about modularity). Now, granted, the theory (MVC++) usually sounds great, but the examples I have seen (Observer++) have made me want a good DSL implementation. -- --Rdm 11:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- I only made a guess at intent. I can't say anything about the quality. I don't understand AOP very well either. If someone wanted to improve the info here that'd be great. --Mwn3d 01:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- It's not very informational either. It doesn't say what AOP is or why you might want to do it, but at least it includes a long rambly example in C, a language which I'd have called inimical to AOP in the first place… I can't even tell if that's because they “get it” much more profoundly than me, or much less. The evidence is consistent with both interpretations! –Donal Fellows 23:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)