You are looking at posts that were written in the month of August in the year 2006.
Posted on August 31st, 2006 by Chris.
Categories: Chris, Programming, Semantic Unit Architecture.
“once i stop changing the name, we’ll know i’ve figured out what it is”
So, in my last entry, I drew a nice diagram that purported to explain exactly how this so called Unit Architecture would be constructed; however, I neglected to have real code to back it up.
How would a Unit be coded? Basically, all a Unit has to expose to the outside world is an interface that lists the semantic types it deals with.
Posted on August 30th, 2006 by Chris.
Categories: Chris, Programming, Semantic Unit Architecture.
So in the past, I promised that I’d discuss how we’d get these objects to communicate with each other. Exactly how would a user list know how to handle its connection to an instant messaging manager?
Before we do this, we’ll go into a brief interlude to see MS’s solution to this problem.
Posted on August 29th, 2006 by Chris.
Categories: Chris, Ideas, Programming, Semantic Unit Architecture.
In my last post, I issued a longish essay that proved that I am equally incompetent in my comprehension of functional and object-oriented programming. We created the notion of a unit, an entity that behaves somewhat like an object–it can be stateful, it defines a space which belongs to it–and somewhat like a function–well, it doesn’t really.
Or does it? Hopefully the example we choose will clarify some aspects of how this method differs from standard development techniques.
Posted on August 28th, 2006 by Chris.
Categories: Chris, Ideas, Programming, Semantic Unit Architecture.
In my last post, “Free as in speech, not as in beer,” I made the rather outlandish claim that open source software will not truly live up to its arrogant claims of freedom until there is freedom for everyone; that everyone with the wit and ambition would be able to understand how software was constructed and even be able to manipulate the code themselves. Now you may argue with me that making software architecture this simple is downright impossible when 30-60% of university students fail their first programming course. And you may be right; I didn’t set a goal based on its achievability.
But it would be silly to give up on a goal with such a wide potential. In fact, I’m going to go ahead and tool a new paradigm of software architecture. To some extent, we have the pieces we need; all that’s needed is a bit (lot) of imagination and hard work.
We can summarize this in three main points: