Search Results

Search found 11 results on 1 pages for 'm3th0dman'.

Page 1/1 | 1 

  • Loose Coupling in Object Oriented Design

    - by m3th0dman
    I am trying to learn GRASP and I found this explained (here on page 3) about Low Coupling and I was very surprised when I found this: Consider the method addTrack for an Album class, two possible methods are: addTrack( Track t ) and addTrack( int no, String title, double duration ) Which method reduces coupling? The second one does, since the class using the Album class does not have to know a Track class. In general, parameters to methods should use base types (int, char ...) and classes from the java.* packages. I tend to diasgree with this; I believe addTrack(Track t) is better than addTrack(int no, String title, double duration) due to various reasons: It is always better for a method to as fewer parameters as possible (according to Uncle Bob's Clean Code none or one preferably, 2 in some cases and 3 in special cases; more than 3 needs refactoring - these are of course recommendations not holly rules). If addTrack is a method of an interface, and the requirements need that a Track should have more information (say year or genre) then the interface needs to be changed and so that the method should supports another parameter. Encapsulation is broke; if addTrack is in an interface, then it should not know the internals of the Track. It is actually more coupled in the second way, with many parameters. Suppose the no parameter needs to be changed from int to long because there are more than MAX_INT tracks (or for whatever reason); then both the Track and the method need to be changed while if the method would be addTrack(Track track) only the Track would be changed. All the 4 arguments are actually connected with each other, and some of them are consequences from others. Which approach is better?

    Read the article

  • Isn't MVC anti OOP?

    - by m3th0dman
    The main idea behind OOP is to unify data and behavior in a single entity - the object. In procedural programming there is data and separately algorithms modifying the data. In the Model-View-Controller pattern the data and the logic/algorithms are placed in distinct entities, the model and the controller respectively. In an equivalent OOP approach shouldn't the model and the controller be placed in the same logical entity?

    Read the article

  • Should adapters or wrappers be unit tested?

    - by m3th0dman
    Suppose that I have a class that implements some logic: public MyLogicImpl implements MyLogic { public void myLogicMethod() { //my logic here } } and somewhere else a test class: public MyLogicImplTest { @Test public void testMyLogicMethod() { /test my logic } } I also have: @WebService public MyWebServices class { @Inject private MyLogic myLogic; @WebMethod public void myLogicWebMethod() { myLogic.myLogicMethod(); } } Should there be a test unit for myLogicWebMethod or should the testing for it be handled in integration testing.

    Read the article

  • Make methods that do not depend on instance fields, static?

    - by m3th0dman
    Recently I started programming in Groovy for a integration testing framework, for a Java project. I use Intellij IDEA with Groovy plug-in and I am surprised to see as a warning for all the methods that are non-static and do not depend on any instance fields. In Java, however, this is not an issue (at least from IDE's point of view). Should all methods that do not depend onto any instance fields be transformed into static functions? If true, is this specific to Groovy or it is available for OOP in general? And why?

    Read the article

  • Quality of Code in unit tests?

    - by m3th0dman
    Is it worth to spend time when writing unit tests in order that the code written there has good quality and is very easy to read? When writing this kinds of tests I break very often the Law of Demeter, for faster writing and not using so many variables. Technically, unit tests are not reused directly - are strictly bound to the code so I do not see any reason for spending much time on them; they only need to be functionaly.

    Read the article

  • Can too much abstraction be bad?

    - by m3th0dman
    As programmers I feel that our goal is to provide good abstractions on the given domain model and business logic. But where should this abstraction stop? How to make the trade-off between abstraction and all it's benefits (flexibility, ease of changing etc.) and ease of understanding the code and all it's benefits. I believe I tend to write code overly abstracted and I don't know how good is it; I often tend to write it like it is some kind of a micro-framework, which consists of two parts: Micro-Modules which are hooked up in the micro-framework: these modules are easy to be understood, developed and maintained as single units. This code basically represents the code that actually does the functional stuff, described in requirements. Connecting code; now here I believe stands the problem. This code tends to be complicated because it is sometimes very abstracted and is hard to be understood at the beginning; this arises due to the fact that it is only pure abstraction, the base in reality and business logic being performed in the code presented 1; from this reason this code is not expected to be changed once tested. Is this a good approach at programming? That it, having changing code very fragmented in many modules and very easy to be understood and non-changing code very complex from the abstraction POV? Should all the code be uniformly complex (that is code 1 more complex and interlinked and code 2 more simple) so that anybody looking through it can understand it in a reasonable amount of time but change is expensive or the solution presented above is good, where "changing code" is very easy to be understood, debugged, changed and "linking code" is kind of difficult. Note: this is not about code readability! Both code at 1 and 2 is readable, but code at 2 comes with more complex abstractions while code 1 comes with simple abstractions.

    Read the article

  • Are the technologies used in an application part of the architecture, or do they represent implementation/detailed design details?

    - by m3th0dman
    When designing and writing documentation for a project an architecture needs to be clearly defined: what are the high-level modules of the system, what are their responsibilities, how do they communicate with each other, what protocols are used etc. But in this list, should the concrete technologies be specified or this is actually an implementation detail and need to be specified at a lower level? For example, consider a distributed application that has two modules which communicate asynchronously via AMQP protocol, mediated by a message broker. The fact that these modules use the Spring AMQP library for sending and receiving messages is a fact that needs to be specified in the architecture or is a lower-level detailed design/implementation detail?

    Read the article

  • Build one to throw away vs Second-system effect

    - by m3th0dman
    One one hand there is an advice that says "Build one to throw away". Only after finishing a software system and seeing the end product we realize what went wrong in the design phase and understand how we should have really done it. On the other hand there is the "second-system effect" which says that the second system of the same kind that is designed is usually worse than the first one; there are many features that did not fit in the first project and were pushed into the second version usually leading to overly complex and overly engineered. Isn't here some contradiction between these principles? What is the correct view over the problems and where is the border between these two? I believe that these "good practices" are were firstly promoted in the seminal book The Mythical Man-Month by Fred Brooks. I know that some of these issues are solved by Agile methodologies, but deep down, the problem is still the principles still stand; for example we would not make important design changes 3 sprints before going live.

    Read the article

  • "A good programmer can be as 10+ times more productive as a mediocre one"

    - by m3th0dman
    I had read an interview with a great programmer (it is not in English) and in it he said that "a great programmer can be as 100 times as good as a mediocre one" giving reason for why good programmers are very well paid and why programming companies give many facilities for their employees. The idea was that there is a very large demand for good programmers, because of the above reason and that's why companies pay very much to bring them. Do you agree with this statement? Do you know any objective facts that could support it? Edit: The question has nothing to do with experience; if you talk about one great programmer with 1 year experience then s/he should be 10 times more productive than a mediocre programmer with 1 year experience. I agree that from certain experience years onwards, things start to dissipate but that's not the purpose of the question.

    Read the article

  • "A good programmer can be as 10+ times more productive than a mediocre one"

    - by m3th0dman
    I had read an interview with a great programmer (it is not in English) and in it he said that "a great programmer can be as 100 times as good as a mediocre one" giving reason for why good programmers are very well paid and why programming companies give many facilities for their employees. The idea was that there is a very large demand for good programmers, because of the above reason and that's why companies pay very much to bring them. Do you agree with this statement? Do you know any objective facts that could support it? Edit: The question has nothing to do with experience; if you talk about one great programmer with 1 year experience then s/he should be 10 times more productive than a mediocre programmer with 1 year experience. I agree that from certain experience years onwards, things start to dissipate but that's not the purpose of the question.

    Read the article

  • How to cut the line between quality and time?

    - by m3th0dman
    On one hand, I have been taught by various software engineering books ([1] as example) that my job as a programmer is to make the best possible software: great design, flexibility, to be easily maintained etc. One the other hand although I realize that I actually write software for money and not for entertainment, although is very nice to write good code and plan ahead and refactor after writing and ... I wonder if it is always best for the business (after all we should be responsible). Is the business always benefiting from a best code? Maybe I'm over-engineering something, and it's not always useful? So how should I know when to stop in the process to achieving the best possible code? I am sure that experience is something that makes a difference here, but I believe this cannot be the only answer. [1] Uncle Bob's in Clean Code says at page 6 about the fact that: They [managers] may defend the schedule and requirements with passion; but that’s their job. It’s your job to defend the code with equal passion.

    Read the article

1