4 ms·
Those read like classes generated by tools. Or maybe I really don't want to think humans are capable of such names.
by aljones 10y ago
Those read like classes generated by tools. Or maybe I really don't want to think humans are capable of such names.
- utexaspunk 10y agoWell, the humans could be tools...
- oriolid 10y agoThese are completely credible class names, just ask any Enterprise Java developer. I particularly enjoy FactoryProtocol-Protocol. Who would be satisfied with just a FactoryProtocol?
- ryandrake 10y agoYea, I was going to say, Java's almost got them beat with SimpleBeanFactoryAwareAspectInstanceFactory[1] 1: http://docs.spring.io/spring/docs/2.5.x/javadoc-api/org/springframework/aop/config/SimpleBeanFactoryAwareAspectInstanceFactory.html http://docs.spring.io/spring/docs/2.5.x/javadoc-api/org/spri...
- ReidZB 10y agoInvoking the Spring framework here is just cheating -- they have dozens of classes like that! :-) Just the other day I was dealing with Spring's declarative transactional support. Here's a fun read: http://docs.spring.io/spring-framework/docs/4.2.x/spring-framework-reference/html/transaction.html http://docs.spring.io/spring-framework/docs/4.2.x/spring-fra...
- lefty2 10y agoThey could be. The effective coding standards for iOS are to make class names stupidly long.