On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 12:54 PM, Robert Cummings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2008-04-16 at 12:43 -0600, Nathan Nobbe wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 5:47 AM, Tony Marston < > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > "Robert Cummings" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > > > > While I agree that Interfaces are mostly a lot of extra code, I have > to > > > > also say that they are there primarily to enforce a contract between > the > > > > user of the interface and their classes that claim to implement the > > > > interface. If someone creates a class that "Implements" an > interface, > > > > then when I have to go edit or use the class, it had better damn > well > > > > implement what it says it does :) > > > > > > "enforcing a contract" is a lot of maningless gobbledegook. The simple > > > fact > > > is that it is possible to have an interface without ever using the > term > > > "interface". Nothing extra is added by using the term "interface" > (except > > > for effort) so there is absolutely no advantage in doing so. That is > why I > > > say that the term "interface" is a waste of effort as absolutely > nothng is > > > gained. > > > > > > can u say dejavu ?? > > > > lets c if we can get another 100 post thread going like we did last year > :D > > this is turning into a dup. > > I've been on this list long enough to know that 99% of what comes across > is a dupe :) > awesome; lets see if we can break 100 this time around ;) -nathan
