|
|
Posted by raf on 09/18/05 06:06
www.douglassdavis.com wrote:
> raf wrote:
>
>>First, your descriptive naming conventions don't help in understanding
>>the intent of your code.
>
>
> the only intent was to demonstrate a language concept. :)
Unfortunately your fragment, though just a small demonstration, shows
the potential shortcoming of using code as a "design artifact"--it
showed me what you did, but gave me no insight in what your intent was.
did those arrays represent a game board and the classes represented
player controllers? Were they tables in a restaurant and the classes
represented bus boys? The PHP problem was one level of concern, but if
we had more insight into what you were trying to do it would make things
easier.
names matter.
raf
> sure.. that's an option. Since it's just a bunch of data that doesn't
> change, I was wondering if i could use member variables to represent
> them, rather than classes... But, good suggestion though.
"bunch of data"? where the abstraction, man? "I've got a loverly bunch
of data... here they are, standing in a row"
What does the data represent?
> That was only an example :) The real code is too long.
no need to post the entire codebase, but just two or three sentences
describing what the fragment represented and meaningful names... that
should be easy, no?
>>Makes me wonder why people flock to use PHP then ;-)
>
>
> Because we actually like programming in PHP :)
Just like Eiffel and Ada programmers, I suppose.
raf
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|