[self-interest] Re: documentation

[David Ungar]

Great point, James. The difference in static checking between the two is part of that, too. I suspect I would like gradual typing (as in Grace). I would expect a library I used to be typed, while my own exploratory code would not be. Types for using your code, no types for writing mine.

- David (from iPad, typos likely)

> On Jul 25, 2016, at 3:02 AM, James Noble kjx at mcs.vuw.ac.nz [self-interest] <self-interest at yahoogroups.com> wrote:
> 
> > Great examples. But you omitted the source code.
> 
> and this I think is one of the most significant cultural changes between Smalltalk and Java -- pretty much a generational change.
> 
> Smalltalk people expected to read the source code, 
> ditto for things like MacApp, ET++, MFC, all shipped
> with code and the expectation people would read it.
> The Lions book is another example. Software Tools.
> 
> Then came Javadoc - and now people expect to be
> able to read only the documentation. I do it myself:
> read the code in Smalltalk or Self (or Grace):
> read the doc in C# or Java. 
> 
> a micro-paradigm shift if you will.
> 
> James
> 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.selflanguage.org/pipermail/self-interest/attachments/20160725/c9ef6d57/attachment.html>