What would you name this class? [modified]
-
Odd. I am totaly not a geek or a nerd. I like talking about philosophy, telling jokes, politics, food, especially food, but never about computers. For me computers are a job. I like writing device drivers for windows, its very complex, very challenging, but I dont give a toss what the market as a whole is doing elsewhere.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Odd. I am totaly not a geek or a nerd. I like talking about philosophy...
Look up the origins of the word "nerd" (e.g. 1st paragraph[^]), which, given your description of your own interests, would accurately describe you to the majority of people who would normally use the word. Before the advent of personal computing, the more common term (in English anyway) was "bookworm". Any given group will always find or invent disparaging terms for those who don't fit with their estimation of the social "norm" (e.g. when "nerds" get together, someone interested in sports will be referred to as a "jock"). Given the venue for this discussion & the remarks you've made (which any reasonable person would recognise as disparaging toward the majority of users of this site), I think we already know the term for you: "troll"[^]
T-Mac-Oz
-
Ravi Bhavnani wrote:
I have a bunch of Foo objects
WhyTF did you start with that stupid name in the first place? And just what does 'Foo' mean anyway? You probably dont knmow, and you just use it because you think it makes you look cool because you read it in some crappy SW book written by an American, because, god knows, only an American would ever use it anyway. Fuck I hate computer nerdyness.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
WhyTF did you start with that stupid name in the first place?
His class is probably called something else* that makes sense for the application & he doesn't want to expose too much of the internals of what he's working on (I wouldn't). It's an industry convention, you write software, you use "Foo" & "FooBar" as example names for functions, classes etc. Just like anyone referring to a generic "person" in an example for anything uses "John Smith". Who cares what it originally meant? It's long since gone past that, it's out there, it's easy to remember & use & its intended meaning is clear to the majority of users of this forum. If he wasted the time to wonder "what example names can I use that won't make me sound too nerdy?", I'd say he's got bigger problems than the nomenclature in his architecture. As for:
fat_boy wrote:
f*** I hate computer nerdyness.
see this[^] * Given one his product names though, I do wonder :-D
T-Mac-Oz
-
FooQueue? :-O
FooQue! That is quite funny :) In all seriousness (is it a serious question?), what is wrong with a more traditional or universal nomenclature (but probably boring) "FooManagerCollection" or "FooManagers"?? Cheers, Hymee.
-
Since it deals with Managers, how about Fool? :)
Christopher Duncan Author of The Career Programmer and Unite the Tribes www.PracticalUSA.com
-
MRLacey wrote:
Objects shouldn't control other objects.
Are you completely unfamiliar with the concept of design patterns? /ravi
My new year resolution: 2048 x 1536 Home | Articles | My .NET bits | Freeware ravib(at)ravib(dot)com
coordinate yes. control no. the distinction is important. Control tends towards tendencies to doing things that objects should be doing themselves. It's hard to be autonomous (which objects should be) if there is a dependency on another object to control it.
Matt Lacey
-
If objects shouldn't control other objects, then what the hell good are they? You just write little objects and say: "See what pretty code I made?" Good grief.
Software Zen:
delete this;
Fold With Us![^] -
coordinate yes. control no. the distinction is important. Control tends towards tendencies to doing things that objects should be doing themselves. It's hard to be autonomous (which objects should be) if there is a dependency on another object to control it.
Matt Lacey
MRLacey wrote:
Control tends towards tendencies to doing things that objects should be doing themselves.
I disagree. Control implies the controller is the entity that requests that its controlled entities perform certain actions (eg: start, stop, pause, etc.). The implementation of start, stop, pause, etc. continue to reside in the controlled object. There is no loss of object orientation or isolation of responsibility. /ravi
My new year resolution: 2048 x 1536 Home | Articles | My .NET bits | Freeware ravib(at)ravib(dot)com
-
MRLacey wrote:
Control tends towards tendencies to doing things that objects should be doing themselves.
I disagree. Control implies the controller is the entity that requests that its controlled entities perform certain actions (eg: start, stop, pause, etc.). The implementation of start, stop, pause, etc. continue to reside in the controlled object. There is no loss of object orientation or isolation of responsibility. /ravi
My new year resolution: 2048 x 1536 Home | Articles | My .NET bits | Freeware ravib(at)ravib(dot)com
I think our disagreement is semantic. I'm just aware (from code I've had to support) that some people think that when controlling another object it is acceptable to break what should be appropriate levels of responsibility. 'Coordinate' prompts people to ask what is meant, compared to control. And can help thinking about appropriate levels of interaction between objects. "Ask that object to save itself", rather than "save that object." Collaboration rather than management. Coordination and cooperation, rather than control.
Matt Lacey
-
(This is not a programming question). I have a bunch of
Fooobjects, all of which are controlled by aFooManager. What would you name an object that controls a collection ofFooManagers? [edit]Foo,FooManagerand the manager ofFooManagers are all processes in a distributed system. [/edit] [edit] John C is right - this really does belong in the Design forum. I might have actually got more than a couple of useful answers if I'd posted there in the first place. :-D [/edit] Thanks, /raviMy new year resolution: 2048 x 1536 Home | Articles | My .NET bits | Freeware ravib(at)ravib(dot)com
modified on Thursday, May 22, 2008 12:49 PM
I may be breaking dozens of rules here, but has anyone simply considered FooManagers? Foo - One FooManager - One that manages Foos FooManagers - Multiple. Unless the collection does something special other than being just a collection.
-
I may be breaking dozens of rules here, but has anyone simply considered FooManagers? Foo - One FooManager - One that manages Foos FooManagers - Multiple. Unless the collection does something special other than being just a collection.
That's just it - it's not a collection. :) Here's what I ended up calling the classes:
FooFooManagerServiceFooManagerServiceController
/ravi
My new year resolution: 2048 x 1536 Home | Articles | My .NET bits | Freeware ravib(at)ravib(dot)com