Re: Using interfaces "everywhere" due to (EMF) modelling framework
- From: James McGill <jmcgill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 13:20:49 -0700
On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 11:47 -0800, James wrote:
What do people think of having a class that implements an interface
called prefixed
with Concrete ?
eg:
Client
ConcreteClient
I'd hate it very much if a project had a thousand classes all called
"ConcreteFoo"
One of the benefits of a strongly-typed language is that you don't need
to rely on naming conventions to tell you about types! I get sick of
the redundant naming prefixes that some people use. It does not solve a
problem and creates complexity where there was none.
I can determine from "Client" that it's an interface -- the langauge
keeps track of that! Likewise, ConcreteClient *knows* it's a regular
class that implements Client. Why feel compelled to repeat this
information? What problem does it solve, and does it solve one problem
by creating another?
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Array Initial data gives code to large error
- Next by Date: Re: How do java programmers cope with java missing c++ const?
- Previous by thread: Re: Using interfaces "everywhere" due to (EMF) modelling framework
- Next by thread: How do java programmers cope with java missing c++ const?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
