2014-05-22 17:30 GMT+02:00 xen <xen@dds.nl>:
Hi, thanks for your feedback on your own issue.Laziness is not a good starting point for something like this you know, because it mostly means you're asking people to do things you could very well do yourself for yourself. There is a fine line between asking for help because it is the most effective way forward, and asking for help because you can't be bothered to help yourself....
Correct, I'm lazy and I wanted to know if someone had this idea before me.
:)
I'm basically insulting you and you're smiling in response? :P haha.Right.
Yes, I thought to "mainstream" programming languages.
Okay I don't know exactly what you mean, maybe something like what Facebook does to its Javascript code? They replace all occurrences of all identifiers with the smallest possible replacements that are possible as a matter of short strings being used. So if you examine their code, you will not find anything other than "a" or "vx" variables and function names. You can bet that's not how they wrote it, but they minimize the data transmission in terms of JS code and CSS descriptors, all the while using such elaborate automation schemes that the code that is left is still huge beyond comparison. So all of their visible code is generated and packed and extremely hard to debug by a user. You can't really see what it's doing so you either have to use some real good debugging tools, or just watch the network connections (GET queries) it tries to make as a result of that code execution, if you want to analyse the page.
In fact I thought to code reduction.
For example, to highlight all the identifiers we have to handle the
identifiers. Refactorings like inlining or extracting require handling the
identifiers too, and so on.
You are talking about VIM bindings for the plugins you use, right? So this is only a personal goal right? So you are intending to spend an awful lot of time developing a framework for yourself so that you can save time on learning some new editor bindings every time you learn a new OOP language?.....
To have one mapping, one definition of refactorings, etc.
For example, all the OOP refactorings work in OOP languages, why shall we
reimplement them in each PL?
My goal is to reduce the learning time, for example, if I learn a new OOP
PL, I don't want to learn new bindings, I just want to learn how to code
with it and I know that OOP Principles don't change.
How often exactly do you intend to do that? I know I'm being inquisitive, but I just want to help you become clear on what it is you want to do, and not end up asking other people for help on something that would only be valuable to you if someone else took the pain of actually doing it for you..........
I mean it is perfectly fine to ask for help, but not on something that you just want to be done FOR you so you can be a lazy ass mofo ;-).
And I'm being this inquisitive because if someone else goes and helps you while not understanding what you exactly want to do, it will not end up helping you anyway.
So get a grip on yourself! People don't learn a new programming language every few weeks. /Not even you/ :D. The number of mainstream languages is extremely limited and the number of native OOP languages even more so. Like, there is OOP in PHP but it's not exactly the mother of OOP languages. What I've seen of Python thus far doesn't seem like hugely OOP either. Then there's Ruby, which is also an interpreted scripting language as far as I know. Then you have the nearly deceased Java and what is left is C++/C#/Objective C and all that stuff.
OOP in PHP is particularly strange. PHP has these weird concepts of error handling that I fail to grasp in their essence. I'm only familiar with Wordpress but it serves a case. Most if not the vast majority of exposed functions in Wordpress (all of it is exposed if it's not in an object) are just plain functions that are suitably named to avoid namespace collisions. All the error handling that exists seeems to be catered towards debugging your code instead of handling proper fail protection. Then they provide a OO layer if you want it, in case you want your code to be really user friendly and reusable. Part of that extention is the thing called "exceptions" which is neat and all but no native code uses it so you can only use it as a wrapper around the core functions or (likely) your own low level functions. So what it comes down to is that you end up manually checking NULL conditions all over the place, which is tiring, more so when a function can return both "NULL" and something else that evaluates to false. And you *can* provide a seemingly-neat OO wrapper that does graceful error handling (try, catch). But you will have to define every single Exception class that you need if you require any differentiation.
Then there is Python. Excellence par excellence in terms of graceful error handling. I've never used it, yet, but that code is NEAT. I guess it is very much OOP, don't know the scope of that yet. But very very different from something like Java or C#.
So all in all I really honestly believe that the goal of wanting to have one-size-fits-all refactoring application or whatever is just an idle fancy that you should let go off, and instead try to figure out what the real thing is you want to achieve, which will be much easier to accomplish, I am sure.
It is a common experience of many tech helpers that people come to them and ask about specific solutions that are vague and elaborate, when after a while it turns out that the problem giver has skipped a few steps and settled on a supposed "wanted" solution when it's not what he/she really wanted after all. Meaning, perhaps you are being too specific in what you want and you should backtrack and explain more of your feelings.
Anyway, good luck.
Xen.
--
--
You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist.
Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
--- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_use" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vim_use+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
I just wanted to know if this kind of abstraction was already implemented, it seems that it's not the case, no problem.
I can try to do it, maybe fail, but the route one takes is more important than the destination.
Thanks.
--
You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist.
Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_use" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vim_use+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
No comments:
Post a Comment