On Tuesday, 13 March 2018 at 12:10:07 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote:
On 14/03/2018 1:02 AM, psychoticRabbit wrote:
On Tuesday, 13 March 2018 at 11:31:12 UTC, rikki cattermole
wrote:
Ah yes.
You're completely correct if you subscribe to Adam's and
ketmar's file sizes expectation.
A D module and package is one level of abstraction. If that
level of abstraction starts to fill up and gets large, you
split it up.
My rule is soft 1k LOC and hard 2-3k (after that it needs a
VERY good reason to stay together).
This makes each file to be very right down to the point and
do nothing else.
You should be doing this no matter the language IMO. Just the
difference is in Java only one class is publicly accessible
per file. Nothing stops you from doing that here either.
Fair enough.
I doubt I'll use your 'lines of code' method as a means of
encapsulation though ;-)
The number of lines of code is more of a code smell which
suggests that the module is going out of scope in size and
functionality.
I have to think more, about what a module is really trying to
encapsulate.
I'm sure there is a good blog that could come out of this
conversation.
(not by me though)
While it is new to some people, we would only be rehashing
existing ideas that have existed in the literature for 40+
years.
Mmm...I think more than just 'some people' will be suprised when
they come to D, and suddenly find that a private member may not
be private at all.
Particulary those C++/C#/Java programmers - who represent the
vast majority of programmers on the planet.
private string _Name;
(oh..in D, this might be private..or it might not be..depends on
what you mean by private)
