From: Lyndon Samson <lyndon.samson@...>
Date: 2006-01-10T14:37:16+09:00
Subject: Re: global variables are bad??

------=_Part_16230_25123566.1136871423167
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On 1/10/06, Steve Litt <slitt@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> On Monday 09 January 2006 10:15 pm, Lyndon Samson wrote:
>
> > I guess what I was thinking was, conceivably you could have a class wit=
h
> > say 100s of methods, all with full access to any (
> private/protected/public
> > ) instance variables. How is that different to 100s of functions
> accessing
> > global variables?
>
> Why would you do that? With hundreds of methods, wouldn't these hundreds
> of
> methods tend to categorize in ways that you could split the big class int=
o
> smaller ones?


Playing Devils Advocate for the sake of the discussion, a quote from MF :-)
http://www.martinfowler.com/bliki/DuckInterface.html

"Another factor is what the language encourages for implementing these
structures. As Charles
Miller<http://fishbowl.pastiche.org/2005/12/09/humane_interfaces>said
"Java's design
*affords* small interfaces, and utility functions provided as static method=
s
on helper classes. Ruby's design affords larger classes with mixed-in
utility methods."



SteveT
>
> Steve Litt
> http://www.troubleshooters.com
> slitt@troubleshooters.com
>
>


--
Into RFID? www.rfidnewsupdate.com Simple, fast, news.

------=_Part_16230_25123566.1136871423167--