On 05/08/2010 17:18, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Mike James wrote:
"Andrei Alexandrescu" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Bruno Medeiros wrote:
On 16/07/2010 18:18, Ali Çehreli wrote:
Justin Johansson wrote:
Which language out of C++, D and Java does this classical
"GoF" (gang-of-four***) design pattern best?
Are we still talking singleton? I thought that it is considered an
anti-pattern already. :)
First time I've heard this as well. I searched the web, and woah,
there does seem to be quite a few people who think the same, but
frankly, upon reading their arguments against singleton (in the
sense that singleton should not be used), most of them don't add up.
In fact some of those arguments are quite idiotic, a lot of people
are totally misunderstanding singleton.
(im not going to botter arguing why, and I hope people here don't
think singleton is inherently bad)
Cause man, I haven't seen such idiocy since when I joined a new
company and found the then lead developer enforced a policy in our
Java codebase of single return statements. Because multiple return
statements were very bad and should *only* be used if performance
necessitated that. Lolz. Talk about software engineering best
practices from the 60's.
OUCHHHHHHHH...
Andrei
Having a single point of exit from a function is still a design
practice in the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) C++ Coding Standard (Rule
113) and is a requirement in MISRA C++:2008 (Rule 6-6-5) and MISRA
C:2004 (Rule 14.4) and also a requirement to writing software under
IEC61508 (Part 3, Table B.9). So its still an engineering best
practice in the 10's :-)
I know! And that doesn't help either!
With exceptions, SESE effectively becomes a dangerous illusion.
Andrei
My thoughts exactly. Although its not the only reason for it being outdated.
Going back to the previous post, well, yes, if you are coding in C or
some similar pre-OO, strutured programming language (in other words,
languages from the 60s and 70s :p) it still makes *some* sense to follow
that rule. The context and principles for the rule are still valid.
Perhaps also for C++ if you restrict yourself to just a subset of C++
functionality. Like in the case of the JSF C++ coding standard, which
also says:
"C++ exceptions shall not be used (i.e. throw, catch and try shall not
be used.)" !
But for most, if not all, newer-than-c mainstream languages, its just a
completely bonkers idea, and not just because of exceptions.
Anyways, moving on...
--
Bruno Medeiros - Software Engineer
