On Tue, Oct 28, 2003 at 09:34:25AM -0800, Bradd W. Szonye wrote: > > bear wrote: > >> My experience though with people providing "uniform APIs" is that it > >> creates a strong temptation to regard the underlying data structures > >> as interchangeable modules, without regard to the efficiency of > >> operations in those structures. This becomes a design requirement, > >> and then people restrict their use of primitives to just those > >> primitives available in *all* of the potential modules. > > scgmille@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > Thats hardly a design issue. Thats more a matter of bad management or > > design on the part of the end user. > > Please, quit trying to dodge responsibility on this issue. Some designs > are error-prone. While *some* of the responsibility falls on the people > who actually make the errors, a *large* part of it falls on the designer > who keeps producing error-prone designs even after he's been informed of > the problem. All interfaces can be badly programmed to, particularly in OO structures where there is a superclass with less functionality than the subclass. Its just not a valid argument to say "This sucks because people might only use the general functionality". Period.
Description: PGP signature