Re: dip Notions 2 Major Errors
From: Phlip (phlip_cpp_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 09/21/04
- Next message: Mark Nicholls: "Re: dip Notions 2 Major Errors"
- Previous message: Traveler: "Re: Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It"
- In reply to: Robert C. Martin: "Re: dip Notions 2 Major Errors"
- Next in thread: Universe: "Re: dip Notions 2 Major Errors"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 14:42:28 GMT
Robert C. Martin wrote:
> > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=6qtavf%24aif%241%40hirame.wwa.com
> >
> >;-)
>
> Phlip, I find it frightening that you knew to reference that post.
Me too.
> Have you memorized the entire ell vs. rmartin story?
Just a couple funny posts.
Elliott wrote:
> When RCM discusses dip and states that client has no outgoing
> dependencies
E, nobody said DIP was automatically better, just a tool. You like
abstraction, except when someone points out a link to one of UB's
principles.
In C++, there are always more ways to cascade a recompile than to change a
_logical_ dependency. Many files will recompile which a programmer knows had
no need to.
However, the C++ architectural principle that permits very aggressive
compiling and very decoupled linking is the ability to put only interfaces
into .h files, and only implementation into .cpp files. So high-quality,
large C++ programs must invert their dependencies, or they will recompile
forever.
-- Phlip http://industrialxp.org/community/bin/view/Main/TestFirstUserInterfaces
- Next message: Mark Nicholls: "Re: dip Notions 2 Major Errors"
- Previous message: Traveler: "Re: Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It"
- In reply to: Robert C. Martin: "Re: dip Notions 2 Major Errors"
- Next in thread: Universe: "Re: dip Notions 2 Major Errors"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|