4 ms·
You can, but the better your standard library, the less you need specialized functions. For instance, instead of something like: response.setHeader("X-Foo"
by weavejester 14y ago
You can, but the better your standard library, the less you need specialized functions. For instance, instead of something like:
response.setHeader("X-Foo", "Bar");
In a functional language we'd change the data structure directly:
(assoc-in response [:headers "X-Foo"] "Bar")
If, for instance, 90% of your application can be factored out into static methods, OOP starts to look like the wrong paradigm.
- wonderzombie 14y agoA lot of static methods on a Util object strikes me as a smell in the context of this discussion. In OO-land it's not a smell per se because often you have no alternative. But functionally your class is a glorified namespace.
- weavejester 14y agoWhat do you mean? I don't believe anyone is suggesting that if you have many static methods or functions, they should all be put in one namespace.
- Ralith 14y agoI think that's exactly what dclowd9901 was suggesting, though he may not have fully considered it.
- dclowd9901 14y agoNot necessarily. Of course defining classes is tricky, and there's no such thing as a rule of thumb, and that's more what I was trying to relay with my comment. And I agree with others who are saying that a piece of software where objects are crammed with tons of static classes is bad OOP.