[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]

  • From: Tei <oscar.vives@g...>
  • To: xml-dev@l...
  • Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 16:17:18 +0200


On 9/26/06, Chiusano Joseph <chiusano_joseph@b...> wrote:
>> "If you have a procedure with ten parameters, you probably missed
>> some." -- Alan Perlis

> "If your functions have more than five parameters, your data
structures [expletive deleted]."
        -- Ray Essick, or so I've been told

"If your functions have 0 parameters, you have no input or output."
        -- Anonymous

OFF-TOPIC

I love how modern OOP programming work. Your atributes are visible on your methods like tiny globals :D, but withouth the 99% side effects of real globals.

"Code evolve to become more flexible, inflexible code break" -- Eloy

Adding more parameters to a functions is horrible. Mean your code is not flexible. Mean you need to make changes on existing, working, debugged code, that is very expensive and ineficient.

I dont care the number of parameters a function have, 0 (like most OOP methods), 2 or 30 (useable if you can name then), but If a simple change on functionality force you to change the number of parameters, is bad.

A horryble, buggy, hacky way to acchieve that is pass parameters as a array, or as a structure, or directly use objects.  So I agree with the "Ray Essick" one. Structures are for complex stuff, rarelly change stuff. And this stuff is a feature "rarelly change stuff". (Can I say "stable" on this mail list?)

// I am sorry my bad english.
Tei


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]


Site Map | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademarks
Free Stylus Studio XML Training:
W3C Member