The perfect teacher
-
RobCroll wrote:
I like the way they explicitly declare methods as public when the class is implicitly internal.
I can't really see anything wrong with that :confused:
RobCroll wrote:
if you want to pass, hand in your assignments :)
I have already got an A, but thanks for the offer :D
Kubajzz wrote:
RobCroll wrote:
I like the way they explicitly declare methods as public when the class is
implicitly internal.I can't really see anything wrong with that :confused:
The methods are public which would suggest they are available to the world but the class is internal and only accessible within the assembly. Explicitly declaring the "Access Modifier" as public is misleading because it can only be private, internal or protected. Congratulations on the A by the way.
"You get that on the big jobs."
-
And he should be shot for concatenating his strings... :laugh:
Real men don't use instructions. They are only the manufacturers opinion on how to put the thing together. Manfred R. Bihy: "Looks as if OP is learning resistant."
-
After x iterations of .NET it would be nice to have a constant for space
String.SpaceorString.Character.Space. I guess you could encapsulate the statement getFName() but other than that, what is the problem?"You get that on the big jobs."
-
See this piece of code:
class Person
{
private string name;
private string sname;public Person(string argName, string argSName) { name = argName; sname = argSName; } public string getName() { return name; } public string getSName() { return sname; } public override string ToString() { return name + " " + sname; }}
Now consider these few facts: - the code is in C#, not Java - in case you haven't noticed, this code violates some basic good-style C# coding guidelines - the person who wrote this code teaches C# programming at university - this piece of code was given to his students as a do-it-like-this example - he never, ever uses properties (Java-style getXXX() and setXXX() methods seem to be good enough for him...) - he sometimes names his classes and methods in Czech using diactitics (yes, it compiles fine since VS is Unicode-based, but... WTF?) - And more!
Kubajzz wrote:
- this piece of code was given to his students as a do-it-like-this example
Mhm... I have to admit, my coding style is a little bit Java-like... but my padawan and I agree on that... but to say "do-it-like-this" is a little bit... wow... :doh: BTW: like your argumentation on this[]...:thumbsup:
(yes|no|maybe)*
-
See this piece of code:
class Person
{
private string name;
private string sname;public Person(string argName, string argSName) { name = argName; sname = argSName; } public string getName() { return name; } public string getSName() { return sname; } public override string ToString() { return name + " " + sname; }}
Now consider these few facts: - the code is in C#, not Java - in case you haven't noticed, this code violates some basic good-style C# coding guidelines - the person who wrote this code teaches C# programming at university - this piece of code was given to his students as a do-it-like-this example - he never, ever uses properties (Java-style getXXX() and setXXX() methods seem to be good enough for him...) - he sometimes names his classes and methods in Czech using diactitics (yes, it compiles fine since VS is Unicode-based, but... WTF?) - And more!
How else would students learn to deal with crappy code? When they graduate, the crappy teacher will just be replaced by a crappy boss and crappy colleagues :)
Jeroen De Dauw (blog | Twitter | Identi.ca)
-
And he should be shot for concatenating his strings... :laugh:
Real men don't use instructions. They are only the manufacturers opinion on how to put the thing together. Manfred R. Bihy: "Looks as if OP is learning resistant."
Seems fine to me.
-
Kubajzz wrote:
RobCroll wrote:
I like the way they explicitly declare methods as public when the class is
implicitly internal.I can't really see anything wrong with that :confused:
The methods are public which would suggest they are available to the world but the class is internal and only accessible within the assembly. Explicitly declaring the "Access Modifier" as public is misleading because it can only be private, internal or protected. Congratulations on the A by the way.
"You get that on the big jobs."
Seems like a fine pratice to me. If the class is later changed to public, all the properties would then become visible outside the assembly. This may be the intention. There is also the case of when implementing an interface (the members would have to be public, even on an internal class). While neither of those appear to be the case here, I don't see a downside to making the members public.
-
Kubajzz wrote:
- in case you haven't noticed, this code violates some basic good-style C# coding guidelines
I haven't noticed. Can you provide an explanation with an example? Thanks. :)
Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar] In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. [Yogi Berra] posting about Crystal Reports here is like discussing gay marriage on a catholic church’s website.[Nishant Sivakumar]
-
Got a citation for that? It would seem to me that string.Format is a lot heavier than concatenation, since it has to parse the format string, work out what the arguments are and then substitute them in. Usually the advice is to use StringBuilder but for such a small example I don't see what's wrong with the concatenation, and Format seems worse.
-
Seems like a fine pratice to me. If the class is later changed to public, all the properties would then become visible outside the assembly. This may be the intention. There is also the case of when implementing an interface (the members would have to be public, even on an internal class). While neither of those appear to be the case here, I don't see a downside to making the members public.
If the assembly has more than just this internal class then the members should be public if you want the other classes in the same assembly to access them. Internal is assembly in scope, public is class in scope. Internal limits public access only to that assembly for that internally declared class, all other classes can still acess the internal class.
-
If the assembly has more than just this internal class then the members should be public if you want the other classes in the same assembly to access them. Internal is assembly in scope, public is class in scope. Internal limits public access only to that assembly for that internally declared class, all other classes can still acess the internal class.
I know. My point was that if you change the class down the road (e.g., by changing it from internal to public) for whatever reason, then it may be advantageous if you had marked all the class members public in the first place (assuming your change of making the class public implies that you also want the members to be public once that change has been made).
-
See this piece of code:
class Person
{
private string name;
private string sname;public Person(string argName, string argSName) { name = argName; sname = argSName; } public string getName() { return name; } public string getSName() { return sname; } public override string ToString() { return name + " " + sname; }}
Now consider these few facts: - the code is in C#, not Java - in case you haven't noticed, this code violates some basic good-style C# coding guidelines - the person who wrote this code teaches C# programming at university - this piece of code was given to his students as a do-it-like-this example - he never, ever uses properties (Java-style getXXX() and setXXX() methods seem to be good enough for him...) - he sometimes names his classes and methods in Czech using diactitics (yes, it compiles fine since VS is Unicode-based, but... WTF?) - And more!
Thank god. you teacher knows that much stuff.
-
See this piece of code:
class Person
{
private string name;
private string sname;public Person(string argName, string argSName) { name = argName; sname = argSName; } public string getName() { return name; } public string getSName() { return sname; } public override string ToString() { return name + " " + sname; }}
Now consider these few facts: - the code is in C#, not Java - in case you haven't noticed, this code violates some basic good-style C# coding guidelines - the person who wrote this code teaches C# programming at university - this piece of code was given to his students as a do-it-like-this example - he never, ever uses properties (Java-style getXXX() and setXXX() methods seem to be good enough for him...) - he sometimes names his classes and methods in Czech using diactitics (yes, it compiles fine since VS is Unicode-based, but... WTF?) - And more!
Properties man ... properties. Good lord.
Brad Barnhill
