Would it make sense to use objects (instead of primitive types) for everything in C++?
During a recent project I’ve been working on, I’ve had to use a lot of functions that kind of look like this:
Is it poor programming practice to pass parameters as Objects? [duplicate]
Want to improve this post? Provide detailed answers to this question, including citations and an explanation of why your answer is correct. Answers without enough detail may be edited or deleted. This question already has answers here: Is static typing worth the trade-offs? (20 answers) Closed 11 years ago. So, we’ve got a guy who […]
Abstracting user interface from domain
My course text suggests creating a ‘facade’ class to completely abstract the user interface from the domain layer. That is, the UI uses only basic types, and if it needs a reference to a domain object, it only knows it as an Object.
Abstracting user interface from domain
My course text suggests creating a ‘facade’ class to completely abstract the user interface from the domain layer. That is, the UI uses only basic types, and if it needs a reference to a domain object, it only knows it as an Object.
Abstracting user interface from domain
My course text suggests creating a ‘facade’ class to completely abstract the user interface from the domain layer. That is, the UI uses only basic types, and if it needs a reference to a domain object, it only knows it as an Object.
Trade-offs between applying the open-closed principle and type safety
There’s lots of questions about the open-closed principle here, but none that I found satisfied this particular problem. At $job, I’m teaching my team Rust, but I believe the nature of this question extends beyond Rust. We have a training problem that we use to kick the tires on new ideas, because we can all imagine a few canonical solutions to it. One small aspect of this problem is that an embedded target needs to communicate with a host PC over a serial port. Naturally, I used Rust’s famous enums to describe the protocol (domain terms have been erased from the example):
Type Safety of Spray.io
Yesterday I read a tweet disparaging Jersey with JAX-RS due to run-time errors. Spray.io was mentioned in the tweet:
Should I feel “uncomfortable” using auto in C++? [duplicate]
We use auto where we don’t have a specific reason to mention the type
explicitly. “Specific reasons” include:
Should I feel “uncomfortable” using auto in C++? [duplicate]
We use auto where we don’t have a specific reason to mention the type
explicitly. “Specific reasons” include:
What is the evidence that an API has exceeded its orthogonality in the context of types?
Wikipedia defines software orthogonality as: