I had the same feeling when reading that article -- but I stopped arguing about any flavor of hungarian notation a while ago. Unless someone uses it on projects I work on, that is :-)
But it is good to see I was not the only one offended. The other things I noticed is that (a) most of the stuff I don't care about (such as where the private members go) and (b) his equals(..) implementation is dodgy -- but I resisted going off on my little personal crusade of hunting down all the weirdness OO caused in terms of defining "equality", because then I would start ranting about why there should be no Object.equals(..) to begin with :-) Peter TorNorbye wrote: > I'll try to remember to bring it up. This is the kind of thing I > suspect the other three guys will be more passionate about than > myself. > After seeing this thread earlier in the week I went to read the > JavaWorld article and I couldn't get past the first point the author > made! > > http://blogs.sun.com/tor/entry/code_advice_15_don_t > > > On Jun 19, 8:03 am, Christian Beil <[email protected]> wrote: > >> To get back to the initial topic, Tor, would you discuss 'package by >> layer' vs. 'package by feature' on the podcast? >> > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
