[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [cdt-dev] Anyone working on "Add Include" refactoring?

Tom,

That definition sounded accurate based on my memory of Martin Fowler's book, and it was faster to copy-paste from Wikipedia than type it out myself. You admit the definition is correct so how does it matter where it was copied from. Frankly, I resent how you try to make me look like some stooge who blindly believes everything on Wikipedia.

I meant for my short post to be informative and not directed solely at you. I just thought some people might not have known there is a logic to how the source and refactoring menus are separated. I was making a minor point and did not want to start a new thread for that. Since you are such an expert on refactoring I must have offended you by replying to your post with such an elementary definition. If that is the case I apologize, It was not my intention to offend. You did not hit any of my nerves and I'm sorry for hitting yours.


Mike Kucera
Software Developer
IBM Eclipse CDT Team
mkucera@xxxxxxxxxx


Inactive hide details for Tom Ball ---01/30/2009 07:17:37 PM---"Refactoring" is defined as (from Wikipedia): ... Apparently I hTom Ball ---01/30/2009 07:17:37 PM---"Refactoring" is defined as (from Wikipedia): ... Apparently I hit a nerve, for someone to quote chapter and verse from the Boo


From:

Tom Ball <tball@xxxxxxxxxx>

To:

"CDT General developers list." <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>

Date:

01/30/2009 07:17 PM

Subject:

Re: [cdt-dev] Anyone working on "Add Include" refactoring?




"Refactoring" is defined as (from Wikipedia): ...
Apparently I hit a nerve, for someone to quote chapter and verse from the Book of Wikipedia!

I know about the difference you cited, which we focused on with Sun's Jackpot Project. Much of that research involved algebraic manipulation of source code, making transformations we could prove didn't change program logic by using predicate logic (such as using DeMorgan's Laws to simplify complex boolean expressions). Imagine the math involved if we had to prove CDT's refactorings!

But that's not the point -- what matters in a developer tool isn't how correctly it adheres to Wikipedia-definitions, but how well it helps developers get code shipped. Developers using our tools want to easily and quickly enhance their projects, and don't want to worry about which side of a definition some editing-feature winds up. The Source/Refactoring menu split shows an important distinction for the authors of JDT/CDT, not the majority of its users. A perfect tool is one that disappears.

The issue we have at Google is that many of our Emacs C++ developers remain more productive than our Eclipse C++ users, so issues like common commands being hard to find are relevant since they impact productivity.

Tom

On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 12:03 PM, Mike Kucera <mkucera@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

From:

Tom Ball <tball@xxxxxxxxxx>

To:

"CDT General developers list." <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>

Date:

01/30/2009 02:00 PM

Subject:

Re: [cdt-dev] Anyone working on "Add Include" refactoring?
_______________________________________________
cdt-dev mailing list
cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev


GIF image

GIF image

GIF image

GIF image