Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

use Perl Log In

Log In

[ Create a new account ]

Mark Leighton Fisher (4252)

Mark Leighton Fisher
  (email not shown publicly)
http://mark-fisher.home.mindspring.com/

I am a Systems Engineer at Regenstrief Institute [regenstrief.org]. I also own Fisher's Creek Consulting [comcast.net].
Friday March 02, 2007
12:58 PM

Thoughts on "Composition Is More Important Than Inheritance"

[ #32549 ]

First, thanks to all those who responded I needed the input to help clarify my thoughts on this topic (see Composition Is More Important Than Inheritance to know what I am babbling about).

My point is that, whenever the subject turns to object-oriented programming, the examples always seem (IMHO) to feature inheritance and inheritance alone. Polymorphism is seen only as a useful side-effect of an inheritance-oriented design, while no attention is paid to (a) encapsulation, the basis for all O-O programming, and (b) other programming paradigms, even those conventionally seen in modern O-O programming like interfaces and allomorphism.

Like I have said, we have many tools in our toolbox, so we need to quit viewing the world as a set of nails to be hammered down. Looser coupling through message-passing instead of argument passing, like Alan Kay et.al. have advocated, is one approach likely to bear some exotically useful fruit. Personally, I have been working through Mark Jason Dominus's Higher-Order Perl, which reveals how techniques developed by LISP and functional programmers are of use to Perl programmers. For that matter, I was able last week to (manually) apply memoization to a VB6 routine thereby dropping the average execution time of the routine by 90%, so the lessons therein are not limited to Perl programmers.

As far as the software on CPAN goes, I am sure that just like my software, some of the designs could use improvement. However, my CPAN point was that the "things" in the solution domain do not all constitute a single, well-ordered tree (or even a forest of such trees). To me, solution domains instead resemble a mixed area, partly forested (high use of inheritance), but mostly a grassy plain with some trees scattered amongst the grasses. To stretch the metaphor past the breaking point, the methods (pun intended) for feeding horses and cattle (grasses/encapsulation) are necessarily different from the methods used in building country cabins (rule-based systems), which are different yet from the methods for maintaining fish and other water creatures (functional programming) (and so on). CPAN possesses a large subset of the infrastructure needed for building modern-day software, so (IMHO) it resembles the software engineering solution domain.

We have a large software engineering toolkit let's use all of it rather than confining ourselves to the hammers and the screwdrivers. One way to explore the toolkit is to learn a language that is specialized for a certain solution domain. For example, it pays to learn regular expressions thoroughly, as no matter what problem domain you write programs for, you will still have to deal with a representation of your data and your program. Regular expressions make many problems in manipulating data&program representations (whether text, AST, or whatever) much more tractable (no surprise to Perl programmers).

Another solution set that is currently hot, Domain-Specific Languages, is actually just Little Languages all over again DSLs owe much to the Unix Little Language tools YACC, eqn, pic, etc., which themselves owe much to the ease of building little languages when you have tools (like compiler-compilers) for easily building little languages. (YACC and its ilk represent an interesting case of bootstrapping.)

A software engineer's toolbox is so large that you may never explore the whole thing, even over the course of your whole career but it pays and pays to explore the tools you need to make your programs faster, better, and cheaper. For example, if you have ever built a program to verify data, whether it is postal addresses, CAD data, or what-have-you, you have probably built some kind of expert system engine inside of the program. (This reminds of the quote about every large program having a badly-written Common LISP interpreter inside.)

Inheritance is not the only tool we have when composing programs (although it can be very useful). Perl 6 should be very interesting, as it brings (more of) the benefits of LISP and functional programming to a wider, conventional-syntax-using, audience. (Perl 5 already has closures, anonymous functions, (nearly) first-class-object regexes, along with the other functionality that enabled a not-too-wordy implementation (sic) for Higher-Order Perl.) As far as I know, Perl 6 will bring the most programming paradigms together under one roof of any mainstream language (and it seems to me to have a logical, consistent design to boot).

So, remember as you compose your programs there are more notes than inheritance and more chord progressions than polymorphism in your program composition toolbox.

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.