Re: A simple question for Abstract Class
- From: "Chris Uppal" <chris.uppal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 09:59:35 +0100
Luc The Perverse wrote:
[me:]
IMO, the "abstract" doesn't add any safety, it just reduces
functionality.[...]
Hmm - for a novice programmer who doesn't know what he/she is doing,
something like a carefully placed assert or abstract class to prevent them
from doing something wrong can be very helpful.
I agree that safety is a worthwhile goal, I even agree -- with strong
reservations -- that safety is still a worthwhile goal even when the only
direct beneficiaries are people who don't fully understand the language.
What I /don't/ agree with is that declaring WindowAdapter abstract adds any
safety at all.
-- chris
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: A simple question for Abstract Class
- From: Dale King
- Re: A simple question for Abstract Class
- References:
- Re: A simple question for Abstract Class
- From: Chris Uppal
- Re: A simple question for Abstract Class
- From: chris brat
- Re: A simple question for Abstract Class
- From: Chris Uppal
- Re: A simple question for Abstract Class
- From: Juha Laiho
- Re: A simple question for Abstract Class
- From: Chris Uppal
- Re: A simple question for Abstract Class
- From: Luc The Perverse
- Re: A simple question for Abstract Class
- Prev by Date: I got some problems when using use activation mechanism of RMI
- Next by Date: Re: subclassing and generics
- Previous by thread: Re: A simple question for Abstract Class
- Next by thread: Re: A simple question for Abstract Class
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|