[News.eclipse.technology.mddi] Re: Accelo

["Joel Cheuoua" <jcheuoua@xxxxxxxx>]

some more answers :)

> I think you missunderstood markus, here.
> He wanted to say, that as we are working on models and metamodels the 
> whole day long when we are developing generators, we want to have the best 
> tools possible.
>
> We don't want to do everything using the swiss knife.
> For instance, if I'm felling trees the whole day a chainsaw might work 
> better. That is what pragmatism means to me.

Agreed. Maybe we should ask ourselves then if people that are making the 
generators are the same than people that designs the models/metamodel ? I 
bet it's not always true ... and probably mostly the contrary (people 
writing the genrators are closer to the PSM than to the PIM).

>> Hmmm ... at the end of the day, when you want to make it work, which kind 
>> of input are you giving to the interpreter ? how is it implemented ? in 
>> working software, runtime is also very important if not more important, 
>> and being pragmatic is also not forgetting this.
>
> I don't understand the point, here...

The point is when you're using the generator, you'r in a java world. So it 
can be convenient to think of everything as java entities for pragmatic 
reason like interoperability etc.

>> Then in the templates you can use
>>
>> MyHelper .selectAllAttributes(myEClass, mew 
>> String[]{"name='foo';unsetable=true'"}, ...)
>
>
> You really call this simple, don't you?

I do ... if it isn't for you, you can change the syntax of the methods :) 
the logic of the parameters, etc ... that's having control ...

> "name='foo';unsetable=true'" is not Java,
> it's your own little language.

Inded .. It's my own little language implemented in java ... this is my 
point, yes.

>> The main difference is in one case there is an non-negligeable entry 
>> cost, but you have the control on the "interpreter" in the other case you 
>> have less control, but its easier.
>
> What do you mean by control? Don't you mean trust?

No, I mean what you pointed out above there : I can write my own little 
language as I want it. I mean I'm not tied to a typesystem M3 
implementation, I mean I'm not tied to anything but java in fact.

> But maybe one or both of use can learn something new, and therefore adjust 
> his view a bit ;-) Pragmatism is also about learning new things and wider 
> our horizon, isn't it?

I agree :-) see my other reply : I don't want to say that one should never 
use oAW. I tried it, and I understand that this is a very useful tool, and 
that people may/will like it (so hopefully I'm trying to have a view a bit 
wider). I just argue that you shouldn't say wrong thing about java language 
in JET being "limited" or "unpractical".

> Yes, it would be great to see features like extensions, closures and type 
> inference in Java like they are included in C#3.0
>
> But I live (and work) now :-)

:-)

>> I'd say that maybe I would've done it if I was really forced to use 
>> XPand, but as I'm not, I'll rather stick on JET, Velocity, JSP and the 
>> like :)
>
> BTW.: Velocity isn't Java...

This is true, you're right ... it was'nt a very good example. Velocity 
template language is closer to java than to OCL but it's not java ...

>> BTW It's a very enriching discussion. Thanks for sharing all those point 
>> of view with us.
>
> I like it, too.

cool :)

Regards
Joel.