I'm not opposed to writing classes. I'm opposed to overcomplicating things that are simple and should stay simple. You seem to get the impression that I am a noob coder.
A global namespace as an object is all you need for managing global variables. If you have variables that need complicated watching and events then putting them in a global namespace is the wrong place for them because they're obviously more specialized and belong in a class that is meant for managing what those variables are about, thereby nullifying the reason to put them in a global namespace. Technically, any variable in any class is, in effect, a variable in a global namespace. That doesn't mean you should write a class for storing globals. It's an extra layer of abstraction that only serves to complicate something that is straightforward and simple. Getting on mailing lists and telling people the most complicated way to do something simple is ridiculous. The original poster didn't have much knowledge about global namespaces and you guys are going to immediately jump into the most complicated way of handling it, sans any explanation (or your lovely pseudocode). I never said OOP is job security. I never said OOP is complicated. You took what I was saying about coding simple things to be complicated and tried to spin it to include all OOP. Using a class to manage global variables is complicated and is a ridiculous way to answer a simple question (and handle a simple thing). You don't need to put everything in a class or component to code OOP correctly. There is such a thing as taking OOP too far. We're talking about global variables here. It's like you're saying "who needs globals?" If you think globals are so noob that they need to be replaced with a dedicated class for managing variables, then why are global variables present in pretty much every modern programming language? I guess you guys outsmarted all the engineers who write the languages you code in. Kudos! I mean, the fact that you need a class to manage your globals because it makes it easier for debugging is telling. How overcomplicated is your code that it is so buggy that you need a class just to debug your global variables? > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ryanm > Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 1:30 PM > To: Flashcoders mailing list > Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] Tell me more about "_global" > > > 7/10 are interactive advertising, which means that I have usually 2 > > weeks(at > > best) to do something that doesn't relate and never had the > time to make > > me > > own framework. > > > Has it occurred to you that if you built a class and got > in the habit of > using it, it would take exactly the same amount of time and > have 10x the > flexibility of your "faster" way? See, the whole idea of an > "architecture" > is to not have to redesign it for every app; you resuse it > every time so > that once it's there, you can use that codebase to build > anything you want. > > All this talk about "real" programmers and "theorycoders" > is pretty > laughable. I especially like the part about using OOP > techniques as "job > security" so that they can't bring anyone else in to read > your code, when > that's actually pretty much the opposite of the reality of > the situation: > any *competent* programmer could understand it, and your > problems with these > methodologies speak more about you than your breadth of "experience". > > I routinely have Java and C# programmers do code reviews > on my AS2 code. > You know how that's possible? I use OOP techniques, so that > it is apparent > what the code is doing even though the guy doing the review doesn't > understant the specific of the APIs I'm accessing. They don't > need to know > specifically why these APIs work the way they do, all they > need to do is > read my inline comments and look at the code changes, and it > is immediately > apparent to them what was changed and why. Any of those guys > could replace > me with a bit of time spent learning the APIs, the syntax is > essentially the > same and my codebase is clean and well documented, so it > would be easy for > anyone with any experience to take over it with a minimal > learning curve. > > It's true, designing interactive banner ads generally > does not require > these lengths, but neither do banner ads usually require > maintenance, so > what difference does it make? If you build one-off, > deliver-it-and-forget-it > Flash work, good for you, your "coding style" is irrelevant, > both to you and > to the rest of the world, because no one will ever have to > look at it again. > For those of us who do actually have to revisit and maintain > code, and who > sometimes inherit large codebases, these things are not only > important, they > are essential. > > I'll just close with a great quote from earlier in the thread: > > 'Not understanding why something is done in a particular way > does not make > it "lame".' > > ryanm > > _______________________________________________ > Flashcoders mailing list > Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com > http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders _______________________________________________ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
