I have developed "tennis elbow" from lugging this book around the past four weeks, but it is worth the pain, the effort, and the aspirin. It is also worth the (relatively speaking) bargain price. Including appendixes, this book contains 894 pages of text. The entire panorama of the neural sciences is surveyed and examined, and it is comprehensive in its scope, from genomes to social behaviors. The editors explicitly state that the book is designed as "an introductory text for students of biology, behavior, and medicine," but it is hard to imagine any audience, interested in any fragment of neuroscience at any level of sophistication, that would not enjoy this book. The editors have done a masterful job of weaving together the biologic, the behavioral, and the clinical sciences into a single tapestry in which everyone from the molecular biologist to the practicing psychiatrist can find and appreciate his or

Principles of Neural Science

物件導向軟體之架構(Object-Oriented Software Construction)探討

Aspect] is a simple and practical aspect-oriented extension to Java With just a few new constructs, AspectJ provides support for modular implementation of a range of crosscutting concerns. In AspectJ's dynamic join point model, join points are well-defined points in the execution of the program; pointcuts are collections of join points; advice are special method-like constructs that can be attached to pointcuts; and aspects are modular units of crosscutting implementation, comprising pointcuts, advice, and ordinary Java member declarations. AspectJ code is compiled into standard Java bytecode. Simple extensions to existing Java development environments make it possible to browse the crosscutting structure of aspects in the same kind of way as one browses the inheritance structure of classes. Several examples show that AspectJ is powerful, and that programs written using it are easy to understand.

An overview of AspectJ

From the Book:
“Clean code that works” is Ron Jeffries’ pithy phrase. The goal is clean code that works, and for a whole bunch of reasons:
Clean code that works is a predictable way to develop. You know when you are finished, without having to worry about a long bug trail.Clean code that works gives you a chance to learn all the lessons that the code has to teach you. If you only ever slap together the first thing you think of, you never have time to think of a second, better, thing. Clean code that works improves the lives of users of our software.Clean code that works lets your teammates count on you, and you on them.Writing clean code that works feels good.But how do you get to clean code that works? Many forces drive you away from clean code, and even code that works. Without taking too much counsel of our fears, here’s what we do—drive development with automated tests, a style of development called “Test-Driven Development” (TDD for short). 
In Test-Driven Development, you:
Write new code only if you first have a failing automated test.Eliminate duplication.

Two simple rules, but they generate complex individual and group behavior. Some of the technical implications are:You must design organically, with running code providing feedback between decisionsYou must write your own tests, since you can’t wait twenty times a day for someone else to write a testYour development environment must provide rapid response to small changesYour designs must consist of many highly cohesive, loosely coupled components, just to make testing easy

The two rules imply an order to the tasks ofprogramming:
1. Red—write a little test that doesn’t work, perhaps doesn’t even compile at first
2. Green—make the test work quickly, committing whatever sins necessary in the process
3. Refactor—eliminate all the duplication created in just getting the test to work


Red/green/refactor. The TDD’s mantra.

Assuming for the moment that such a style is possible, it might be possible to dramatically reduce the defect density of code and make the subject of work crystal clear to all involved. If so, writing only code demanded by failing tests also has social implications:
If the defect density can be reduced enough, QA can shift from reactive to pro-active workIf the number of nasty surprises can be reduced enough, project managers can estimate accurately enough to involve real customers in daily developmentIf the topics of technical conversations can be made clear enough, programmers can work in minute-by-minute collaboration instead of daily or weekly collaborationAgain, if the defect density can be reduced enough, we can have shippable software with new functionality every day, leading to new business relationships with customers


So, the concept is simple, but what’s my motivation? Why would a programmer take on the additional work of writing automated tests? Why would a programmer work in tiny little steps when their mind is capable of great soaring swoops of design? Courage.
Courage
Test-driven development is a way of managing fear during programming. I don’t mean fear in a bad way, pow widdle prwogwammew needs a pacifiew, but fear in the legitimate, this-is-a-hard-problem-and-I-can’t-see-the-end-from-the-beginning sense. If pain is nature’s way of saying “Stop!”, fear is nature’s way of saying “Be careful.” Being careful is good, but fear has a host of other effects:
Makes you tentativeMakes you want to communicate lessMakes you shy from feedbackMakes you grumpy

None of these effects are helpful when programming, especially when programming something hard. So, how can you face a difficult situation and:
Instead of being tentative, begin learning concretely as quickly as possible.Instead of clamming up, communicate more clearly.Instead of avoiding feedback, search out helpful, concrete feedback.(You’ll have to work on grumpiness on your own.) 

Imagine programming as turning a crank to pull a bucket of water from a well. When the bucket is small, a free-spinning crank is fine. When the bucket is big and full of water, you’re going to get tired before the bucket is all the way up. You need a ratchet mechanism to enable you to rest between bouts of cranking. The heavier the bucket, the closer the teeth need to be on the ratchet.

The tests in test-driven development are the teeth of the ratchet. Once you get one test working, you know it is working, now and forever. You are one step closer to having everything working than you were when the test was broken. Now get the next one working, and the next, and the next. By analogy, the tougher the programming problem, the less ground should be covered by each test.

Readers of Extreme Programming Explained will notice a difference in tone between XP and TDD. TDD isn’t an absolute like Extreme Programming. XP says, “Here are things you must be able to do to be prepared to evolve further.” TDD is a little fuzzier. TDD is an awareness of the gap between decision and feedback during programming, and techniques to control that gap. “What if I do a paper design for a week, then test-drive the code? Is that TDD?” Sure, it’s TDD. You were aware of the gap between decision and feedback and you controlled the gap deliberately.

That said, most people who learn TDD find their programming practice changed for good. “Test Infected” is the phrase Erich Gamma coined to describe this shift. You might find yourself writing more tests earlier, and working in smaller steps than you ever dreamed would be sensible. On the other hand, some programmers learn TDD and go back to their earlier practices, reserving TDD for special occasions when ordinary programming isn’t making progress.

There are certainly programming tasks that can’t be driven solely by tests (or at least, not yet). Security software and concurrency, for example, are two topics where TDD is not sufficient to mechanically demonstrate that the goals of the software have been met. Security relies on essentially defect-free code, true, but also on human judgement about the methods used to secure the software. Subtle concurrency problems can’t be reliably duplicated by running the code.

Once you are finished reading this book, you should be ready to:
Start simplyWrite automated testsRefactor to add design decisions one at a time

This book is organized into three sections.
An example of writing typical model code using TDD. The example is one I got from Ward Cunningham years ago, and have used many times since, multi-currency arithmetic. In it you will learn to write tests before code and grow a design organically.An example of testing more complicated logic, including reflection and exceptions, by developing a framework for automated testing. This example also serves to introduce you to the xUnit architecture that is at the heart of many programmer-oriented testing tools. In the second example you will learn to work in even smaller steps than in the first example, including the kind of self-referential hooha beloved of computer scientists.Patterns for TDD. Included are patterns for the deciding what tests to write, how to write tests using xUnit, and a greatest hits selection of the design patterns and refactorings used in the examples.

I wrote the examples imagining a pair programming session. If you like looking at the map before wandering around, you may want to go straight to the patterns in Section 3 and use the examples as illustrations. If you prefer just wandering around and then looking at the map to see where you’ve been, try reading the examples through and refering to the patterns when you want more detail about a technique, then using the patterns as a reference.

Several reviewers have commented they got the most out of the examples when they started up a programming environment and entered the code and ran the tests as they read.

A note about the examples. Both examples, multi-currency calculation and a testing framework, appear simple. There are (and I have seen) complicated, ugly, messy ways of solving the same problems. I could have chosen one of those complicated, ugly, messy solutions to give the book an air of “reality.” However, my goal, and I hope your goal, is to write clean code that works. Before teeing off on the examples as being too simple, spend 15 seconds imagining a programming world in which all code was this clear and direct, where there were no complicated solutions, only apparently complicated problems begging for careful thought. TDD is a practice that can help you lead yourself to exactly that careful thought.

Test Driven Development: By Example

Balsamodendron mukul (Guggul): The Oleo-gum-resin exuded by this tree has been regarded as a sovereign remedy in ancient medicine. It is a bitter stomachic and carminative and improves digestion. It is quickly absorbed and is excreted by skin, mucous membranes and kidneys and in the course of excretion it disinfects their secretions improves the function and stimulates the activity of the respective organs. It has marked antiseptic properties.

Composition 构好图，出好片

Omniscient debuggers make it possible to navigate backwards in time within a program execution trace, drastically improving the task of debugging complex applications. Still, they are mostly ignored in practice due to the challenges raised by the potentially huge size of the execution traces. This paper shows that omniscient debugging can be realistically realized through the use of different techniques addressing efficiency, scalability and usability. We present TOD, a portable Trace-Oriented Debugger for Java, which combines an efficient instrumentation for event generation, a specialized distributed database for scalable storage and efficient querying, support for partial traces in order to reduce the trace volume to relevant events, and innovative interface components for interactive trace navigation and analysis in the development environment. Provided a reasonable infrastructure, the performance of TOD allows a responsive debugging experience in the face of large programs.

Scalable omniscient debugging

Language researchers and designers have extended a wide variety of type systems to support gradual typing, which enables languages to seamlessly combine dynamic and static checking. These efforts consistently demonstrate that designing a satisfactory gradual counterpart to a static type system is challenging, and this challenge only increases with the sophistication of the type system. Gradual type system designers need more formal tools to help them conceptualize, structure, and evaluate their designs. In this paper, we propose a new formal foundation for gradual typing, drawing on principles from abstract interpretation to give gradual types a semantics in terms of pre-existing static types. Abstracting Gradual Typing (AGT for short) yields a formal account of consistency---one of the cornerstones of the gradual typing approach---that subsumes existing notions of consistency, which were developed through intuition and ad hoc reasoning. Given a syntax-directed static typing judgment, the AGT approach induces a corresponding gradual typing judgment. Then the type safety proof for the underlying static discipline induces a dynamic semantics for gradual programs defined over source-language typing derivations. The AGT approach does not resort to an externally justified cast calculus: instead, run-time checks naturally arise by deducing evidence for consistent judgments during proof reduction. To illustrate the approach, we develop a novel gradually-typed counterpart for a language with record subtyping. Gradual languages designed with the AGT approach satisfy by construction the refined criteria for gradual typing set forth by Siek and colleagues.

Abstracting gradual typing

Behavioral reflection is a powerful approach for adapting the behavior of running applications. In this paper we present and motivate partial behavioral reflection, an approach to more efficient and flexible behavioral reflection. We expose the spatial and temporal dimensions of such reflection, and propose a model of partial behavioral reflection based on the notion of hooksets. In the context of Java, we describe a reflective architecture offering appropriate interfaces for static and dynamic configuration of partial behavioral reflection at various levels, as well as Reflex, an open reflective extension for Java implementing this architecture. Reflex is the first extension that fully supports partial behavioral reflection in a portable manner, and that seamlessly integrates load-time and runtime behavioral reflection. The paper shows preliminary benchmarks and examples supporting the approach. The examples, dealing with the observer pattern and asynchronous communication via transparent futures, also show the interest of partial behavioral reflection as a tool for open dynamic Aspect-Oriented Programming.

Partial behavioral reflection: spatial and temporal selection of reification

Being able to define and use different aspect languages, including domain-specific aspect languages, to cleanly modularize concerns of a software system represents a valuable perspective. However, combining existing tools leads to unpredictable results, and proposals for experimentation with and integration of aspect languages mostly fail to deal with composition satisfactorily and to provide convenient abstractions to implement new aspect languages. This paper exposes the architecture of a versatile AOP kernel and its Java implementation, Reflex. On top of basic facilities for behavioral and structural transformation, Reflex provides composition handling, including detection of interactions, and language support via a lightweight plugin architecture. We present these facilities and illustrate composition of aspects written in different aspect languages.

/pdf/a-versatile-kernel-for-multi-language-aop-4blaikrzns.pdf

A versatile kernel for multi-language AOP

Context-aware applications behave differently depending on the context in which they are running. Since context-specific behavior tends to crosscut base programs, it can advantageously be implemented as aspects. This leads to the notion of context-aware aspects, i.e., aspects whose behavior depends on context. This paper analyzes the issue of appropriate support from the aspect language to both restrict the scope of aspects according to the context and allow aspect definitions to access information associated to the context. We propose an open framework for context-aware aspects that allows for the definition of first-class contexts and supports the definition of context awareness constructs for aspects, including the ability to refer to past contexts, and to provide domain- and application-specific constructs.

/pdf/context-aware-aspects-2poibvvxra.pdf

Éric Tanter

Papers

Scalable omniscient debugging

Abstracting gradual typing

Partial behavioral reflection: spatial and temporal selection of reification

A versatile kernel for multi-language AOP

Context-aware aspects