On Wednesday, 16 May 2012 at 11:12:19 UTC, Stephen Jones wrote:
Ali your post above, and T your post in the other forum (Simpsons bit) is sort of what I was after. I tried both interface and abstract class but not outright super class. The problem I have with the solution is the same problem I have with header files and cpp files; in both instances you need to hunt in other files for the variable's definition. If name is a field that will contain Bart's name then it should be in the Bart class, otherwise I end up wasting time confused about some variable that has been initialized or used to initialize some other variable and not finding it in the relevant module.
But the thing about using an abstract class, and polymorphism/inheritance is the known interface is whatever the object is cast to. So the Simpson family you only know about string name, and object; That meaning anything that bart may have otherwise isn't accessible since that part of the code doesn't know more than what the Simpson class lets it know ahead of time. That is it. There isn't that much to look up depending on how high up/down you go. But I do hate looking up the information too..
Cain: My understanding is that D is based on "no proper ways of doing things" just get the job done.
I thought that was C++.... it was something like 'refuse to give in to an ounce of better control or simplicity if it may have any impact on performance and zero overhead'.... plus backwards compatibility. Besides the STL is so confusing I will likely never use it or most of C++.
Proper ways of doing things are more how you write your code rather than the language. immutable, string, shared, scope... All these things have a 'proper way' of using them if you look. Just having an array as a fat pointer (with length) is a huge improvement that's built into the language. It's almost more 'D is so new that the proper way to make use of it isn't fully written/available'.
