Ben Tilly wrote: > Tom Metro wrote: >> The closure version doesn't "scale." You can't stick it in a library and >> call it from multiple places without stepping on things. > > I've seen closure based solutions and OO versions both scale, and > both fail. They are appropriate for different problems, and > different designs. But as long as you know what they are (and > aren't) good at, you can choose either.
I agree. For this use case, the sample code proposed wouldn't "scale" and wold require additional complexity to make it do so. Plus, the end result would be something far more likely to trip up the next programmer to look at it, which may be your future self. (I guess if you and your colleagues are closure fans, that wouldn't apply. In a typical shop, it would.) I'm not saying a design using closures can't scale. I'm just saying if you have a problem that decomposes well to an OO design, and you have no special requirements motivating you not to use OO, that should be the default. (Not in a draconian, "you must do OO" way, but in a "the language makes it super convenient" way.) -Tom -- Tom Metro Venture Logic, Newton, MA, USA "Enterprise solutions through open source." Professional Profile: http://tmetro.venturelogic.com/ _______________________________________________ Boston-pm mailing list [email protected] http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm
