Go with an object-oriented perspective [duplicate]
If there’s a chance that you will reuse this code, then I would
probably make the effort to go with an object-oriented perspective.
Using the global namespace can be dangerous — you run the risk of
hard to find bugs due to variable names that get reused. Typically I
start by using an object-oriented approach for anything more than a
simple callback so that I don’t have to do the re-write thing. Any
time that you have a group of related functions in javascript, I
think, it’s a candidate for an object-oriented approach.
Go with an object-oriented perspective [duplicate]
If there’s a chance that you will reuse this code, then I would
probably make the effort to go with an object-oriented perspective.
Using the global namespace can be dangerous — you run the risk of
hard to find bugs due to variable names that get reused. Typically I
start by using an object-oriented approach for anything more than a
simple callback so that I don’t have to do the re-write thing. Any
time that you have a group of related functions in javascript, I
think, it’s a candidate for an object-oriented approach.
Go with an object-oriented perspective [duplicate]
If there’s a chance that you will reuse this code, then I would
probably make the effort to go with an object-oriented perspective.
Using the global namespace can be dangerous — you run the risk of
hard to find bugs due to variable names that get reused. Typically I
start by using an object-oriented approach for anything more than a
simple callback so that I don’t have to do the re-write thing. Any
time that you have a group of related functions in javascript, I
think, it’s a candidate for an object-oriented approach.
Why Java doesn’t make use of encapsulation with some classes?
My question is related with System.in and System.out classes (there might be others like those in the Standard library). Why is that? Isn’t that a bad practice in OOP? Shouldn’t it be used like: System.getIn() and System.getOut()? I’ve always had this question and I hope I can find a good answer here.
Why Java doesn’t make use of encapsulation with some classes?
My question is related with System.in and System.out classes (there might be others like those in the Standard library). Why is that? Isn’t that a bad practice in OOP? Shouldn’t it be used like: System.getIn() and System.getOut()? I’ve always had this question and I hope I can find a good answer here.
Encapsulate standard C functions?
While studying the C programming language and learning safe practices, I’m inclined to write a layer of functionality over several parts of the standard library. This would serve two purposes: I could use standard parts of the language in ways that feel more familiar or rational to me, and I could easily replace that functionality with my own, if I needed to.
Encapsulate standard C functions?
While studying the C programming language and learning safe practices, I’m inclined to write a layer of functionality over several parts of the standard library. This would serve two purposes: I could use standard parts of the language in ways that feel more familiar or rational to me, and I could easily replace that functionality with my own, if I needed to.
Encapsulate standard C functions?
While studying the C programming language and learning safe practices, I’m inclined to write a layer of functionality over several parts of the standard library. This would serve two purposes: I could use standard parts of the language in ways that feel more familiar or rational to me, and I could easily replace that functionality with my own, if I needed to.
Encapsulate standard C functions?
While studying the C programming language and learning safe practices, I’m inclined to write a layer of functionality over several parts of the standard library. This would serve two purposes: I could use standard parts of the language in ways that feel more familiar or rational to me, and I could easily replace that functionality with my own, if I needed to.
Encapsulate standard C functions?
While studying the C programming language and learning safe practices, I’m inclined to write a layer of functionality over several parts of the standard library. This would serve two purposes: I could use standard parts of the language in ways that feel more familiar or rational to me, and I could easily replace that functionality with my own, if I needed to.