PureBasic Forums - English

Hi,

- PocketPC support would be very welcome...
- DbC (Design by Contract) idem ditto, see also viewtopic.php?t=14498&highlight=design+contract...

I also would like to be able to use PureBasic to create PocketPC apps.

+1

It means supporting a brand new CPU which means not for now .

Fred wrote:not for now .

bien attendu, merci...

But most of the os calls are the same (once the ARM cpu is supported).

dell_jockey,

Out of curiosity, what would you want to achieve with DbC?

Would you be satisfied with a good automated testing framework, like xUnit or Fit?

http://fit.c2.com/
http://www.junit.org/

I appreciate that DbC means much more than these, but that is within an Object Oriented context.

Hi GedB,

unit- or blackbox-testing certainly has its merits. Thanks for those links! I'd like to have DbC to instrument my functions/procedures on a somewhat lower level, to ascertain that:
- the contracts guarantee that the function/procedure works as intended
- error reports are as meaningful as possible and are pointing to the real cause of the error
- to automatically generate documentation about contracts, function interfaces in general, etc.

Only after ascertaining that the lower level stuff works as advertised, unit- or blackbox-testing becomes very meaningful, because errors found point to design flaws on a higher level...

I don't think that DbC is confined to OOP really. After all, if you take all the hype out, DbC is nothing more than a method to monitor what happens at the entry and exit interfaces of functions/procedures. I've seen DbC stuff for ANSI-C, so it must be possible. One possible drawback in non-OO languages might be that strengthening contracts (as possible when inheriting class properties) might be a problem. Then again, PB interfaces allow for OO-ish programming, so it might be possible to implement this as well.

Come to think of it, that might be a nice project...