Posted by Sanders Kaufman on 12/19/07 02:39

"Toby A Inkster" <usenet200707@tobyinkster.co.uk> wrote in message
news:tfhjn4-mvu.ln1@ophelia.g5n.co.uk...
> Michael Fesser wrote:
>
>> They are perfectly OOP, whenever you have to make sure that there's
>> always exactly one (not more, not less) instance of a class.
>
> I agree with Sanders here: they're inconsistent with OOP theory. They're
> basically just glorified globals wrapped up in a class-oriented syntax.
>
> Of course, they're useful as hell -- just like globals and gotos and all
> those other dirty little pleasures that programmers use when no-one's
> watching.

Amen.
I'm always willing to sacrafice purity in coding for results in production!

[Back to original message]