Is there ever a reason to do all an object’s work in a constructor?
Let me preface this by saying this is not my code nor my coworkers’ code. Years ago when our company was smaller, we had some projects we needed done that we did not have the capacity for, so they were outsourced. Now, I have nothing against outsourcing or contractors in general, but the codebase they produced is a mass of WTFs. That being said, it does (mostly) work, so I suppose it’s in the top 10% of outsourced projects I’ve seen.
C++ – Constructor or Initialize Method to Startup [duplicate]
Possible Duplicate:
Avoid having an initialization method
Should all classes have a default constructor as part of good coding convention
From the texts I have read so far, the conventions talk about organizing constructors, starting with the default, if any. I am wondering, should all classes have a default constructor anyway. This will at least help to create a simple instance of the class on the fly, without having to use a parameterized constructor, which itself may require additional imports for specific parameter type.
Should all classes have a default constructor as part of good coding convention
From the texts I have read so far, the conventions talk about organizing constructors, starting with the default, if any. I am wondering, should all classes have a default constructor anyway. This will at least help to create a simple instance of the class on the fly, without having to use a parameterized constructor, which itself may require additional imports for specific parameter type.
Should all classes have a default constructor as part of good coding convention
From the texts I have read so far, the conventions talk about organizing constructors, starting with the default, if any. I am wondering, should all classes have a default constructor anyway. This will at least help to create a simple instance of the class on the fly, without having to use a parameterized constructor, which itself may require additional imports for specific parameter type.
Should all classes have a default constructor as part of good coding convention
From the texts I have read so far, the conventions talk about organizing constructors, starting with the default, if any. I am wondering, should all classes have a default constructor anyway. This will at least help to create a simple instance of the class on the fly, without having to use a parameterized constructor, which itself may require additional imports for specific parameter type.
Requring static class setter to be called before constructor, bad design?
I have a class, say Foo, and every instance of Foo will need and contain the same List object, myList.
Requring static class setter to be called before constructor, bad design?
I have a class, say Foo, and every instance of Foo will need and contain the same List object, myList.
Requring static class setter to be called before constructor, bad design?
I have a class, say Foo, and every instance of Foo will need and contain the same List object, myList.
Requring static class setter to be called before constructor, bad design?
I have a class, say Foo, and every instance of Foo will need and contain the same List object, myList.