Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [XP] C++ stack objects [OT?] (was: Continous integration without version control)

Expand Messages
  • Bob Koss
    ... Polymorphism doesn t require heap based objects. Stack works fine. What it does require is access through a pointer or reference variable. Two different
    Message 1 of 48 , Sep 1, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      > > And then a Duh! Moment when I realized that maybe Mock objects
      > COULD have
      > > been useful... but only just barely, this is C++ and using Mock objects
      > > would have required not using stack-based objects (no polymorphism for
      > > stack-based objects), so I'd need a factory object and a some
      > kind of smart
      > > pointer template class, which can be a lot harder to write than
      > you might
      > > think. [I really regret the popularization of C++.]
      >

      Polymorphism doesn't require heap based objects. Stack works fine.

      What it does require is access through a pointer or reference variable.

      Two different concepts that just so happen to come together because heap
      allocation gives you a pointer to the object.

      ----
      Robert S. Koss, Ph.D. | Training and Mentoring
      Senior Consultant | Object Oriented Design
      Object Mentor, Inc. | C++, Java
      www.objectmentor.com | Extreme Programming
    • kevinxp@qualitycode.com
      ... Valuable to end users? No. Valuable to the XP customer so he can see progress, validate the rules so far, and think of new ones that may break the system?
      Message 48 of 48 , Sep 7, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In extremeprogramming@y..., "Matthew Davis" <azami@s...> wrote:
        > --- In extremeprogramming@y..., kentbeck@c... wrote:
        > > At LifeWare, we would have a new insurance product to implement. We
        > > would get a simple version of it working with an acceptance test.
        > > Then the actuary would give us a variation, we would make that work.
        > > When the actuary couldn't think of any more variations, we were
        > ready
        > > to go live, and we put the product into the list of possible
        > products
        > > in the GUI.
        > >
        > > The actuary seemed to think each new variation working was valuable.
        > > Was he wrong?
        >
        > I suppose it depends on how you define valuable. In the strictest
        > sense, _I_ would say he was wrong.

        Valuable to end users? No.
        Valuable to the XP customer so he can see progress, validate the rules so far,
        and think of new ones that may break the system? Absolutely.

        I do agree that changing the UI may make a new release unusable by legacy
        customers, thus requiring a branch. It depends on the customers, the product,
        the business model, the nature of the changes, and whether Ron sneezed the
        day before or not.

        Kevin
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.