If an entity is composed, is it still a god object?
I am working on a system to configure hardware. Unfortunately, there is tons of variety in the hardware, which means there’s a wide variety of capabilities and configurations depending on what specific hardware the software connects to.
If an entity is composed, is it still a god object?
I am working on a system to configure hardware. Unfortunately, there is tons of variety in the hardware, which means there’s a wide variety of capabilities and configurations depending on what specific hardware the software connects to.
If an entity is composed, is it still a god object?
I am working on a system to configure hardware. Unfortunately, there is tons of variety in the hardware, which means there’s a wide variety of capabilities and configurations depending on what specific hardware the software connects to.
If an entity is composed, is it still a god object?
I am working on a system to configure hardware. Unfortunately, there is tons of variety in the hardware, which means there’s a wide variety of capabilities and configurations depending on what specific hardware the software connects to.
What is the name of the following (anti) pattern? What are its advantages and disadvantages?
Over the last few months, I stumbled a few times over the following technique / pattern. However, I can’t seem to find a specific name, nor am I a 100% sure about all its advantages and disadvantages.
What is the name of the following (anti) pattern? What are its advantages and disadvantages?
Over the last few months, I stumbled a few times over the following technique / pattern. However, I can’t seem to find a specific name, nor am I a 100% sure about all its advantages and disadvantages.
What is the name of the following (anti) pattern? What are its advantages and disadvantages?
Over the last few months, I stumbled a few times over the following technique / pattern. However, I can’t seem to find a specific name, nor am I a 100% sure about all its advantages and disadvantages.
Preventing a parser from turning into a (seemingly) god-sized object
So I have a program whose purpose is to take text files and parse them into a binary format that an embedded system understands. However, the text format I’ve inherited that I need to parse is sufficiently complex enough that after refactoring the main parse routine I’m left with a class with more than 50 methods that almost all look something like parseChannel, parseWCommand, parseVCommand, parsePCommand, parseLoop, parseHex, parseInt, etc. etc. etc.
Preventing a parser from turning into a (seemingly) god-sized object
So I have a program whose purpose is to take text files and parse them into a binary format that an embedded system understands. However, the text format I’ve inherited that I need to parse is sufficiently complex enough that after refactoring the main parse routine I’m left with a class with more than 50 methods that almost all look something like parseChannel, parseWCommand, parseVCommand, parsePCommand, parseLoop, parseHex, parseInt, etc. etc. etc.
Preventing a parser from turning into a (seemingly) god-sized object
So I have a program whose purpose is to take text files and parse them into a binary format that an embedded system understands. However, the text format I’ve inherited that I need to parse is sufficiently complex enough that after refactoring the main parse routine I’m left with a class with more than 50 methods that almost all look something like parseChannel, parseWCommand, parseVCommand, parsePCommand, parseLoop, parseHex, parseInt, etc. etc. etc.