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

RE: [XP] Re: Code Complete: Things were Scary Back Then

Expand Messages
  • Blum, Robert
    ... While it is perfectly OK to wonder why that virtual function is coming from a completely different class than we expected it to be :) The problem is not
    Message 1 of 10 , Apr 1, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      > From: jmead1us [mailto:jmead1@...]

      > Hey - why waste memory on a switch variable - just change the target
      > address! Besides we are software gods. We write perfect code. No-
      > one will ever wonder when the source says "GOTO A", how the debugger
      > wound up at "B".

      While it is perfectly OK to wonder why that virtual function is coming from
      a completely different class than we expected it to be :)

      The problem is not the language, but the reliance on the 'god-factor'

      - Robert
    • John Hayes
      My response would be then don t . But I m looking for a better explanation than that - I ve found people say complicated when they mean unfamiliar. An OO
      Message 2 of 10 , Apr 1, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        My response would be "then don't". But I'm looking for a better explanation than that - I've found people say complicated when they mean unfamiliar. An OO program is really no more complicated - just some of the flow control is done in the type constructs instead of the structured programming constructs.

        Refactoring just provides tools to reset that division.

        John

        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: Bill de hÓra [mailto:dehora@...]
        > Sent: Monday, April 01, 2002 12:27 PM
        > To: extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com
        > Subject: RE: [XP] Re: Code Complete: Things were Scary Back Then

        > > -----Original Message-----
        > > From: jeffgrigg63132 [mailto:jgrigg@...]

        > > To be successful with OO concept (or even just good modules),
        > > developers must muster the skill of abstraction.

        > Maybe. Maybe some developers don't trust the abstractions given to
        > them and want to know what's really going on behind the curtain.

        > > I've heard some good arguments form people who were against OO
        > > due to their experiences of small methods being bad "because
        > > you can't see what they're doing; everything's hidden in tiny
        > > little methods."

        > Is that as in "I can't follow the flow of execution" ?
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.