Re: Are subroutines DI? (Re: Disadvantages of Dependency Inversion?)
- From: gpuchtel <gpuchtel@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 13:58:42 -0700
I have no desire to convince anyone there is only one way to do
something. Nor do I have the desire to enter in to an adolescent
dialog (much like what the topic "Whose Fish" has become.) Frankly, it
is unimportant to me what 'Topmind' thinks, says or does. I have read
enough of his posts to know I don't care.
If you believe that subroutines somehow exhibit the DIP, then good
luck with that. If you believe that DIP or OO in general are
unimportant, then good luck with that as well.
--
"A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing
left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away" - Antoine de
St-Expurey
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Disadvantages of Dependency Inversion?
- From: sweetchuck74
- Re: Disadvantages of Dependency Inversion?
- From: H. S. Lahman
- Re: Disadvantages of Dependency Inversion?
- From: topmind
- Re: Disadvantages of Dependency Inversion?
- From: gpuchtel
- Are subroutines DI? (Re: Disadvantages of Dependency Inversion?)
- From: topmind
- Disadvantages of Dependency Inversion?
- Prev by Date: Are subroutines DI? (Re: Disadvantages of Dependency Inversion?)
- Next by Date: Re: Law of Demeter can be supported without eliminating object coupling
- Previous by thread: Are subroutines DI? (Re: Disadvantages of Dependency Inversion?)
- Next by thread: Re: Are subroutines DI? (Re: Disadvantages of Dependency Inversion?)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|