HN Explorer

7 comments

[ 2.1 ms ] story [ 25.3 ms ] thread
JoeAltmaier
Article says not talking semantics, but in examples, other than changing the names, nothing changed. Didn't read it all but not following after first 5 pages so gave up.
ainiriand
You are right, its a flawed idea, in a flawed form.
CarlMings
even though I do not agree with your thought, I do find the article somewhat useful, in content of the example and the reference book about the Object Orientated Programming.
touristtam
I don't see the point of having a set of accessors on a Ball object from the point of view of a Dog object. It is really up to the programmer to have method names that makes sense in the first place. I don't see how a dog.Weight() makes more sense than the convention dog.GetWeight().

Never the less, I am now intrigued by the book mentioned. :)

[edit] I am curious about the book.

yegor256a
The convention of getWeight() is bad because it assumes an existence of setWeight(). And get/set methods turn an object into a holder of data.
Rachelgee
I don't see the point either. However, the book is the major point of interest in the article. I look forward to read it.