|
|
Posted by Jerry Stuckle on 12/27/07 14:31
Sanders Kaufman wrote:
> "Toby A Inkster" <usenet200707@tobyinkster.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:73ijn4-mvu.ln1@ophelia.g5n.co.uk...
>> Sanders Kaufman wrote:
>>
>>> The best answer came from Jerry when he said it was for purely academic
>>> reasons - to keep tight with the OOP design principles.
>> How about this... what happens when one day you decide that your
>> constructor should do something over and above what the reset function
>> does?
>
> I've been programming since the 1970's.
> In my experience, that situation is as rare as a duck that can't swim.
>
I've been doing OO programming for almost 20 years now (and programming
since the 60's). The situation is more common that you claim -
especially in more complicated classes. But even in relatively basic
ones it can be found - if they're properly designed, that is.
> Your point is valid - there's a design consideration that can add a measure
> of reusability.
> It's like how you *should* use high-octane gas, even though the one a few
> points lower works fine.
> The difference is negligible - and the shortcut is acceptable.
>
>
>
>
The difference is negligible, I agree. So why not do it correctly?
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|