totally agree with you on this :)
On Dec 25, 2010, at 9:44 PM, Michael Haufe (TNO) wrote:
> On Dec 25, 6:36 pm, fernando trasvina <trasv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
>> so you always check your types in your factories?
>> and always check for the interface on your apis?
>> is this efficient?
>
> I always typecheck the arguments passed to functions:
>
> function sq(x){
> if(typeof x != "number")
> throw new Error("Invalid argument, number expected.");
> return x * x;
> }
>
>> so the draw method should draw anything that complies with the interface?
>
> My point to Garret was that even if the proper method names were
> present, it would not necessarily mean that they are appropriate
> implementations. Checking for the existence of a field/method is not
> enough and that it is more robust to enforce the categorization of the
> objects by their inheritance relationships:
>
> function draw(s){
> if(!(s instanceof Shape))
> throw new Error("Shape expected");
> //call methods of the Shape instance
> }
>
>> how many mutations of objects do you have that could not be written as
>> extensions or objects?
>
> The point is to develop code so that it won't matter. If you build a
> code base large enough that it won;t all fit in your head, or if you
> expose it to the world to use it is important to enforce certain rules
> and not fly by the seat of your pants.
>
>> is this mutations so big to check the interface every time (this will mean
>> that you don't even know how your code is behaving to check the api of the
>> object)?
>
> using the instanceof operator is much faster than manually checking
> individual methods for their existence.
>
>> how about check for drawable type.
>
> if(element instanceof Drawable) ...
>
>> do you really code like you code in the emails? or can you send a real code
>> when the examples you provide are necessary?
>
> Do I code with contrived examples? Of course not, but I don't have the
> patience necessary to compress and present the semantics of a problem
> in a syntactic way that is consumable by an unknown number of people
> of varying levels of ability.
>
> --
> To view archived discussions from the original JSMentors Mailman list:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/jsmentors@jsmentors.com/
>
> To search via a non-Google archive, visit here:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/jsmentors@googlegroups.com/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> jsmentors+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
--
To view archived discussions from the original JSMentors Mailman list:
http://www.mail-archive.com/jsmentors@jsmentors.com/
To search via a non-Google archive, visit here:
http://www.mail-archive.com/jsmentors@googlegroups.com/
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
jsmentors+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
