3 ms·
My point was that the trade-off is not something unavoidable. A better language could allow you to syntactically decouple the tightly coupled objects. See the e
by rumcajz 14y ago
My point was that the trade-off is not something unavoidable. A better language could allow you to syntactically decouple the tightly coupled objects. See the example at the end of the article.
- dkersten 14y agoA better language could allow you to... And yet C is not this language.
- mpyne 14y agoAnd even if it was, C++ is nearly a superset of C. Write the part in C-style code which works best in C and then move on with your life...
- vampirechicken 14y agoI was actually agreeing with you, and elaborating on what you talked about. I went back and read the bottom of the article. The Design Pattern people might call that a decorator. The ruby folks would use a mixin to monkey patch the person class. You're in good company. The trade-offs are still code complexity + programmer time vs. memory use + run time. The more general you make something, the more overhead at run time.