Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
On Sunday 27 October 2002 15:46, Mike Champion wrote: > 10/27/2002 7:05:57 AM, Alaric Snell <alaric@a...> wrote: > >Hey, there's a point in my position that we don't need harsh seperation > >between data interchange format descriptions and in-memory ones; why do we > >need a seperate notation for each? > > Loose coupling, loose coupling, and loose coupling. So that one side can > change internal data structures, implementation languages, platforms, > versions of the application software etc. etc. etc. without everything > breaking. Ah, but that's not what I said :-) I said "why do we need a seperate notation"? I can do loose coupling despite using the same word 'integer' to represent the same concept in various places, although sometimes it's capitalised to Integer or INTEGER or abbreviated to int. And the notion of a C struct / Pascal record / Perl hash-with-agreed-keys / PHP array-with-agreed-keys / Java class-with-public-fields-and-no-parent are all fairly interchangeable in many contexts, too... ABS -- A city is like a large, complex, rabbit - ARP
|
