Comments on: Coding Peeves…

By: Sean Hoffman

Sean Hoffman — Mon, 06 Dec 2004 06:27:18 +0000

Mine is more of a design issue; I despise when object-oriented purists assume that they’re deities and insist on making all member variables and member functions "private". By doing so, you are assuming that you are all-knowing and that you are fully aware of every potential way your class might be derived and used in the future. I can’t tell you how many times I wanted to tweak how something was done in the base class but couldn’t because all the "goods" were hidden away by an over-zealous coder who thought they were protecting me from myself. Here’s a hint. Use ‘protected’. Assume that if I AM you (referring to what role an inherited class plays with regards to the base class), that I’m either smart enough to know what I’m doing or crazy enough to take on the risks.

By: John Wester

John Wester — Wed, 01 Dec 2004 06:45:01 +0000

Here’s mine. I’m working in a legacy code base that has jewels like this:

function TSomething.Doit : Integer;

begin

result := ERR_UNEXPECTED;

if FFoo then Exit;

if FBar then Exit;

if FMoby and not FBlurgh then Exit;

if FMumble then

begin

.

.

.

result := S_OK;

end;

end;

By: Anders Ivner

Anders Ivner — Mon, 29 Nov 2004 03:05:09 +0000

Implicit dependencies. It’s in my blog. Like Jim above, I’d like to say: don’t get me started…

By: Jim McKeeth

Jim McKeeth — Wed, 24 Nov 2004 19:50:45 +0000

Oops, I guess it doesn’t like anchor tags. I’ll remember that for next time.

By: Jim McKeeth

Jim McKeeth — Wed, 24 Nov 2004 19:49:55 +0000

You really shouldn't get me <a href="http://www.bsdg.org/2004/11/more-coding-peeves.shtml">started</a>">http://www.bsdg.org/2004/11/more-coding-peeves.shtml">started</a>.

http://www.bsdg.org/2004/11/more-coding-peeves.shtml