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

Re: [XP] XP and .NET popularity

Expand Messages
  • cg@cdegroot.com
    ... Well, if it s really as complex as you indicate, there s one thing that could be done: 1. Remove it from your harddrive and find a decent environment to
    Message 1 of 219 , Jan 1, 2003
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Kathleen Dollard <joeris_k@...> said:
      >From your perspective, what are the top four things that could be done
      >to .NET to make it friendlier to XP?
      >
      Well, if it's really as complex as you indicate, there's one thing that could
      be done:
      1. Remove it from your harddrive and find a decent environment to work in

      (I'll hold my suggestions, it's abundantly known here what I prefer :-))


      --
      Cees de Groot http://www.cdegroot.com <cg@...>
      GnuPG 1024D/E0989E8B 0016 F679 F38D 5946 4ECD 1986 F303 937F E098 9E8B
      Cogito ergo evigilo
    • 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
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        > > 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.