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

Re: [XP] XP and .NET popularity

Expand Messages
  • Edmund Schweppe
    ... Speaking of refactoring: I was peeking through the VS.NET site, trying to see if they said anything about the refactoring capabilities (if any) of VS.NET;
    Message 1 of 219 , Jan 1, 2003
      Edmund Schweppe wrote:
      >
      > Ron Jeffries wrote:
      > >
      > > On Tuesday, December 31, 2002, at 8:51:53 AM, Dave Rooney wrote:
      > >
      > > > My sense of humour level is inversely proportional to the level of my first
      > > > coffee... they're now at about equilibrium! :) Besides, you normally put a
      > > > smiley after smart-a**ed comments like that!! I was worried that you had
      > > > gone over to the dark side.
      > >
      > > Gone over? I /invented/ the dark side.
      >
      > Yeah, but look what happened when Billy boy started refactoring it...

      Speaking of refactoring: I was peeking through the VS.NET site, trying
      to see if they said anything about the refactoring capabilities (if any)
      of VS.NET; on
      http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/productinfo/features/edfeatures.asp I
      found the H1 tag looking like this:

      <h1 class="navpages"><%=Application("sSiteLabel")%>Features Overview for
      Visual Studio .NET Enterprise Developer</h1>

      And a happy new year to you, *too*, Mr. Gates...

      --
      Edmund Schweppe -- schweppe@... -- http://schweppe.home.tiac.net
      The opinions expressed herein are at best coincidentally related to
      those of any past, present or future employer.
    • Daniel Sheppard
      ... If the language isn t doing type-checking on you, you wouldn t have had to refactor that test to make it compile. You would have run your tests and see
      Message 219 of 219 , Jan 5, 2003
        > > Well, you had a test that did "new Car(owner)" and asserted
        > that this object
        > > returned what you expected from toString() before you
        > refactored. So you break
        > > your unit test.
        >
        > Yes, that test is in the unit tests for Car. When refactoring
        > Car, I of
        > course changed that one to take an OwnerList, rather than an
        > owner. The
        > problem is with someone who *calls* that method. I'm supposing that I
        > forgot about refactoring DmvImporter as well.

        If the language isn't doing type-checking on you, you wouldn't have had to refactor that test to make it compile.

        You would have run your tests and see that it fails, and your first thought at that point should not be "how do I change the test to make it work?" but "how do I change the code to make it work?". This would have led you to change your toString() method operates correctly regardless of it being an owner or an ownerlist. If you don't have control of all the calling code, or you can't trust yourself to change it all, this is the only solution you should be entertaining.

        Daniel Sheppard

        daniels at pronto.com.au
        #####################################################################################
        This email has been scanned by MailMarshal, an email content filter.
        #####################################################################################
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.