Contribution vs quality, and a few notes on the Platform process
voldermort at hotmail.com
Tue Nov 9 02:38:03 EST 2010
On 09/11/2010 00:13, Ian Lynagh wrote:
> I'm not sure what to put this thought in reply to, so I'll just put it
> One criticism that I feel I've seen a lot, about the standard libraries
> of many languages, is that they are inconsistent; e.g. this sort of
> thing, about Java:
> It’s also interesting to note that Hashtable, another important
> standard library class, does not have any final methods.
> As mentioned elsewhere in this book, it’s quite obvious that some
> classes were designed by completely different people than others.
> (Notice the brevity of the method names in Hashtable compared to
> those in Vector.) This is precisely the sort of thing that should
> not be obvious to consumers of a class library. When things are
> inconsistent it just makes more work for the user. Yet another paean
> to the value of design and code walkthroughs.
Haskell is much better in this regard. We do not need to compare different classes to find inconsistencies; the Monoid
class was named by category theorists, but its functions were named by people who consider all data to be lists.
More information about the Libraries