Talk:Main Page
m (Reverted edits by Ebybymic (Talk); changed back to last version by BenMcDonald) |
|||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
Look guys we're on Google but check out the link the have found. Hit number five. Random Aye? -[[User:Jason Clutterbuck|Jason Clutterbuck]] 09:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC) | Look guys we're on Google but check out the link the have found. Hit number five. Random Aye? -[[User:Jason Clutterbuck|Jason Clutterbuck]] 09:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC) | ||
| − | [[Image:On Google.jpg| | + | [[Image:On Google.jpg|thumb]] |
The most common page people access from this page is [[OO wisdom]], is it worth making it bold of something so it stands out? --[[User:Matthew Harward|Matthew Harward]] 08:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC) | The most common page people access from this page is [[OO wisdom]], is it worth making it bold of something so it stands out? --[[User:Matthew Harward|Matthew Harward]] 08:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC) | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
:I'm not sure making it bold is the best idea. I think the OO wisdom page should actually be split up for nicer organisation of the wiki in general. At the moment we seem to have a lot of long lists of pages that aren't nicely categorised. --[[User:Michal Connole|Michal Connole]] 09:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC) | :I'm not sure making it bold is the best idea. I think the OO wisdom page should actually be split up for nicer organisation of the wiki in general. At the moment we seem to have a lot of long lists of pages that aren't nicely categorised. --[[User:Michal Connole|Michal Connole]] 09:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC) | ||
| − | :I have made a section for ' | + | :I have made a section for 'Content' this page. It should help regular users from scanning unnecessary content in the page. --[[User:Matthew Harward|Matthew Harward]] 20:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC) |
| + | |||
| + | I have added a link on this page to an interesting perspective to OO design from the minds of Trygve and Coplien. Take a look! --[[User:Matthew Harward|Matthew Harward]] 23:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Most commercial applications use multiple threads operating on the same code. Is there any decent literature or advice for OO design when dealing with multi-threaded applications? --[[User:Matthew Harward|Matthew Harward]] 22:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | In relation to the article on python, apart from the unnecessary parameter 't' in the python code, it is obviously class encapsulation, which in my personal opinion is suboptimal. While Java may be more complicated and require boiler plate, at least one can use protected variables if sub-objects need to access the data. Why not use C#? Its object encapsulation is "better" and it has properties. I may be wrong, but the author of the article probably is not familiar with the difference between class and object encapsulation. While python may be less verbose, I'll wager it is harder to maintain... Anyone have any experience with maintaining/writing large python systems? --[[User:Matthew Harward|Matthew Harward]] 15:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :Python's encapsulation is weak. My guess to your question of 'does python work in large systems?' is that it would be a lot harder to find errors. Someone could just decide to break encapsulation and there is no type checking. My favourite language at the moment is Fan [[http://fandev.org/]]. It runs on the Java VM and the .NET CLR. This is how they do their properties. | ||
| + | |||
| + | abstract class Canvas{ | ||
| + | Int width{ protected set } //Public get, protected set | ||
| + | Int height{ protected set } | ||
| + | abstract Image image | ||
| + | } | ||
| + | |||
| + | :I'm currently asking them what they think of the C++ const modifier http://fandev.org/sidewalk/topic/127 under CashMonkey. | ||
Latest revision as of 03:23, 25 November 2010
Wal was here.
Look guys we're on Google but check out the link the have found. Hit number five. Random Aye? -Jason Clutterbuck 09:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
The most common page people access from this page is OO wisdom, is it worth making it bold of something so it stands out? --Matthew Harward 08:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure making it bold is the best idea. I think the OO wisdom page should actually be split up for nicer organisation of the wiki in general. At the moment we seem to have a lot of long lists of pages that aren't nicely categorised. --Michal Connole 09:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- I have made a section for 'Content' this page. It should help regular users from scanning unnecessary content in the page. --Matthew Harward 20:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I have added a link on this page to an interesting perspective to OO design from the minds of Trygve and Coplien. Take a look! --Matthew Harward 23:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Most commercial applications use multiple threads operating on the same code. Is there any decent literature or advice for OO design when dealing with multi-threaded applications? --Matthew Harward 22:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
In relation to the article on python, apart from the unnecessary parameter 't' in the python code, it is obviously class encapsulation, which in my personal opinion is suboptimal. While Java may be more complicated and require boiler plate, at least one can use protected variables if sub-objects need to access the data. Why not use C#? Its object encapsulation is "better" and it has properties. I may be wrong, but the author of the article probably is not familiar with the difference between class and object encapsulation. While python may be less verbose, I'll wager it is harder to maintain... Anyone have any experience with maintaining/writing large python systems? --Matthew Harward 15:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- Python's encapsulation is weak. My guess to your question of 'does python work in large systems?' is that it would be a lot harder to find errors. Someone could just decide to break encapsulation and there is no type checking. My favourite language at the moment is Fan [[1]]. It runs on the Java VM and the .NET CLR. This is how they do their properties.
abstract class Canvas{
Int width{ protected set } //Public get, protected set
Int height{ protected set }
abstract Image image
}
- I'm currently asking them what they think of the C++ const modifier http://fandev.org/sidewalk/topic/127 under CashMonkey.
