BillWoodruff wrote:
I can't claim to be at a "guru level" on choosing whether to use "standard," or virtual, or abstract classes, and using your choice of those with interface definitions.
Wow that's actually saying a lot and is somehow comforting to me considering your impressive background and experience Bill! :)
BillWoodruff wrote:
It took me a long time to "grok" that on one level using interfaces was a contract, a compile-time enforced promise that any object that inherited from the interface implemented every specification in the interface ... and, that interfaces also functioned as a way to establish a kind of "semantic viewport" on objects, so you could expose an object instance "filtered" in a carefully controlled way by passing it cast to the interface.
... never thought about the "semantic viewport" offered by interfaces; more appreciated food for thought you have provided me here... :cool:
BillWoodruff wrote:
I'm still looking (eagerly) for wisdom in terms of best practices in OO design; and I doubt I'll ever quit looking.
Neat quote and well said, Bill - an encouraging thought that promises to inspire me today in my grok quest (hmm "Grok Quest" - that almost sounds like a good name for a bad video game, yes?) :-D Thanks Man, Cheers!
"... having only that moment finished a vigorous game of Wiff-Waff and eaten a tartiflet." - Henry Minute "Let's face it, after Monday and Tuesday, even the calendar says WTF!" - gavindon "I'm still looking (eagerly) for wisdom in terms of best practices in OO design; and I doubt I'll ever quit looking." - BillWoodruff "Programming is a race between programmers trying to build bigger and better idiot proof programs, and the universe trying to build bigger and better idiots, so far... the universe is winning." - gavindon