3 ms·
You sound like a religious adept. Open your eyes, just see the truth, blah-blah-blah. I asked for a very simple thing - a piece of code which is easy, robust a
by sklogic 11y ago
You sound like a religious adept. Open your eyes, just see the truth, blah-blah-blah.
I asked for a very simple thing - a piece of code which is easy, robust and maintainable because of its use of OOP. All of the qualities are objective and easy to measure, regardless of your philosophy. There must be at leat some examples of this. If they do not exist, then your claims that OOP eliminates complexity are nothing but religion, not backed by any evidence at all.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- dang 11y agoPlease stop, both of you.
- mcphage 11y ago> I asked for a very simple thing - a piece of code which is easy, robust and maintainable because of its use of OOP. All of the qualities are objective and easy to measure, regardless of your philosophy. How is that a simple thing? What are you looking for? If I showed you a piece of code which was I said was simple, robust, and maintainable, how would you know whether it's true or not, unless you know the language, the problem it's intended to solve, and have a personal history of maintaining it? No, you're asking a question with no possible answer, and then intended to use that lack as proof in your own mind.
- sklogic 11y agoI was looking for objectively measurable parameters. Lines of code, depth of nested constructs, average number of entities per functional block, code to documentation ratio, test coverage, bug history. Anything that can be expressed in numbers and does not depend on subjective views.