30 Mar, 2010, flumpy wrote in the 22nd comment:
Deimos said:
In this case, "should" is an overloaded word. That's all I've been trying to convince you of. It "can" be done in various ways, but "should" is completely subjective. There are different reasons for wanting to do things in different ways, and, as Runter pointed out, what "should" be done is only whatever gets the job done in the easiest or simplest manner. And what you were arguing for doesn't fit these requirements in every situation. I never once attempted to argue that the behavior "should" be in World; just that it "could" be, and that I saw nothing blatantly wrong with doing it that way.
So, yes; I am completely disagreeing with you if you're still saying that any one way is how it "should" be done, unless you qualify that "should" with "in my opinion."
So, yes; I am completely disagreeing with you if you're still saying that any one way is how it "should" be done, unless you qualify that "should" with "in my opinion."
Ok, so it's semantics.
Great to have that cleared up.
30 Mar, 2010, David Haley wrote in the 23rd comment:
Deimos said:
unless you qualify that "should" with "in my opinion."
Out of curiosity, what does this mean? I think that the norm is that everything anybody says is "in their opinion" unless we're talking about a question that truly does have a clear-cut answer (e.g., this algorithm is more efficient than that one under these circumstances).
flumpy said:
Ok, so it's semantics.
You say that like it's a dirty word…
30 Mar, 2010, Deimos wrote in the 24th comment:
flumpy said:
Ok, so it's semantics.
Effectively, yes; and in the reality I live in, semantics are crucial for effective communication. Especially when the differences in those semantics (as in this case) communicate completely different concepts.
David Haley said:
Out of curiosity, what does this mean? I think that the norm is that everything anybody says is "in their opinion" unless we're talking about a question that truly does have a clear-cut answer (e.g., this algorithm is more efficient than that one under these circumstances).
He was not using "should" in the context of "this is my opinion", but rather "this is the clear-cut answer;" as evidenced by the unsubstantiated "this is the only proper OO way" and "most programmers do it my way so it must be right" supporting arguments he made.
30 Mar, 2010, flumpy wrote in the 25th comment:
Deimos said:
He was not using "should" in the context of "this is my opinion", but rather "this is the clear-cut answer;" as evidenced by the unsubstantiated "this is the only proper OO way" and "most programmers do it my way so it must be right" supporting arguments he made.
flumpy said:
My own personal feeling is that 6 should be done by the SpellManager object rather than the World object, even if SpellManager is a delegate of World.
flumpy said:
Yes, you "should" (in quotes, because "it depends"). It is far harder to re-factor code and can become much more difficult to understand what the object is actually doing if you are mixing functionality together like this in a single class.
[snip]
But that's not to say it isn't (note: i meant is) a hard and fast rule, you should use composition when you feel like your objects are becoming too multifaceted or when you require object reuse. I often build objects that initially perform most tasks themselves, and when I hit a scenario where I have to reuse the code only then move the methods and data into a second.
[snip]
But that's not to say it isn't (note: i meant is) a hard and fast rule, you should use composition when you feel like your objects are becoming too multifaceted or when you require object reuse. I often build objects that initially perform most tasks themselves, and when I hit a scenario where I have to reuse the code only then move the methods and data into a second.
Sorry, but those quotes in no way match what you are now saying I was doing. Please re-read them.
Edit: if you prefer "could" over "should" then I believe this is an acceptable compromise. I will try from now on to use "could" rather than "should".
30 Mar, 2010, Deimos wrote in the 26th comment:
I think we both know why you only quoted yourself from your first 2 posts in the discussion. :wink:
30 Mar, 2010, flumpy wrote in the 27th comment:
The other posts were because I simply just could not understand how it were possible that you misunderstood me so completely, tbh, I thought I had given more than enough context for you to understand what I was trying to say…
The posts at DH were just me getting pissed with him interfering and muddying the waters, like usual ;)
(no offence, DH)
The posts at DH were just me getting pissed with him interfering and muddying the waters, like usual ;)
(no offence, DH)
30 Mar, 2010, Runter wrote in the 28th comment:
Well, part of my design decisions come from not being as smart as you guys.
So I need simple solutions for a simple guy. :)
So I need simple solutions for a simple guy. :)
30 Mar, 2010, Tyche wrote in the 29th comment:
Runter said:
Well, part of my design decisions come from not being as smart as you guys.
So I need simple solutions for a simple guy. :)
So I need simple solutions for a simple guy. :)
SimplestVersusRight
Follow the links… the entire site is a good read that will occupy one for many months. :-)
31 Mar, 2010, Deimos wrote in the 30th comment:
Hah. That is some really interesting stuff. Thanks Tyche.
So, yes; I am completely disagreeing with you if you're still saying that any one way is how it "should" be done, unless you qualify that "should" with "in my opinion."