jokerx

4 ms·

1.
by jokerx 8y ago
Those have been in UML for years. (Google it.) Actually, that's the problem: everything is in UML. I am sure someone pointed out that "X" had it but UML didn't, so they made sure to add it. BTW, a 20 year old link is n
2.
by jokerx 8y ago
Housing projects for everybody!
3.
by jokerx 8y ago
Said parent commenter: "Without any good life strategies the happiness money brings peaks at 70k or such (basically you don't have to worry about regular life expenses)." Please! Try having a few kids and living in a desirabl
4.
by jokerx 8y ago
Looks just like UML to me. All those "round trip" model to code, code to model promises were a bust. And this article from the late 90s--talk about stale ideas.
5.
by jokerx 8y ago
Your example of needing to define a type because "int" is not good enough is very C/C++ centric. Most languages don't have the plethora of integer types that C has. Java, for example, has just has 2 in general use: int (
6.
by jokerx 8y ago
Code tells "how." Comments tell "why."
7.
by jokerx 8y ago
I take it you don't write a lot of CRUD apps? You deal with a lot of data that is of only a few simple types, and as I said in my post, interoperability means you can't get too crazy with your class definitions. They need to stay
8.
by jokerx 8y ago
I understand your reasoning, but in your reply to my critique, you did not address any of the drawbacks I listed except for the first comment I made. If you can explicitly refute those, then your position would be stronger.
9.
by jokerx 8y ago
Please don't do this! All you have accomplished really is to move the descriptive name from the variable's name to the variable's type, and at what cost? You now have to create a whole new datatype. The programmer must look u