[Insight-developers] Test framework

[Bill Lorensen]

Hans.

I understand.

BTW: I hope you are using a good object-oriented text like:
http://www.amazon.com/Object-Oriented-Modeling-Design-UML-2nd/dp/0130159204/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1230669811&sr=8-1

although I was an author of the original (which sold over 200,00 copies)

http://www.amazon.com/Object-Oriented-Modeling-Design-James-Rumbaugh/dp/0136298419/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1230669880&sr=8-2

I still get a few pennies from the new book. Helpful for a retired guy
on a fixed income...

Bill

On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 3:39 PM, Hans Johnson <hans-johnson at uiowa.edu> wrote:
> Bill,
>
> I certainly have a skewed perception here.  My "customers" are the 25
> engineering graduate students that I will be teaching this spring that have
> just finished taking a course in modern C++/generic programming/object
> oriented programming techniques where they learned all the nasty
> non-portable little tricks in C++.
>
> The lack of support for partial specialization is a recurrent theme that
> burns many new developers.
>
> I like to think of the 100's of developers working hard on improving ITK as
> one of the major customers, and wanted to make sure that at least some
> mention of our concerns were included in the discussion.
>
>
>
> Hans
>
>
>
>
> On 12/30/08 2:23 PM, "Bill Lorensen" <bill.lorensen at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Sorry. e-mail sent too soon...
>>
>> Hans,
>>
>> I think your view is very developer-oriented, not customer-oriented.
>> That's OK, I respect your opinion.
>>
>> As an academic your priorities may be different than those of a
>> company that must support products on a large number of platforms. I
>> understand that some day, new algorithms that can only be implemented
>> with particular c++ features will require an upgrade.
>>
>> I would be willing to look at the new code you mentioned that can only
>> be implemented with partial specialization. In the past, the use of
>> such code is not necessarily a requirement to implement an algorithm.
>> However, I do admit, that in the case of the new gdcm, that partial
>> specialization is so prevalent that partial specialization cannot be
>> removed. Personally, I think that is unfortunate since reading dicom
>> files does not necessarily require partial specialization. Rather,
>> this is a convenience for the developer.
>>
>> Bill
>
>