3 ms·
do each of the steps, as an object, look overengineered? I follow the advice of this column, but I differ in my implementation. It is lightweight and not so O
by m463 2y ago
do each of the steps, as an object, look overengineered?
I follow the advice of this column, but I differ in my implementation. It is lightweight and not so OO.
- hansvm 2y agoI'm more anti-object than most people, and this doesn't look terrible to me. You have a sequence of imperative steps, and they're represented with two levels of nesting rather than one. So long as nobody fucks the thing up more and overcomplicates your do-nothing automation, even the most vocal opponents of 'class AbstractFoo: pass` are likely to agree that the damage here from that abstraction is minimal.
- HappMacDonald 2y agoI don't see any objects in this script though, just functions.
- m463 2y agowell, he defines a bunch of classes each with a single method then... just seems to add a lot of abstraction, that might bury your understanding.