Timeline for Is it common to use partial classes to achieve 'modularity'?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 20, 2012 at 15:51 | comment | added | Bill K | @Ryathal it's not what's "in", it's what you think is good design (for good reasons) and then, as you practice and improve you realize it's just not as good an idea as you thought. It seems that happens every 5 years or so, and once I recognized that it tempers my response to some people's comments because I realize they are actually excellent designers who are (as are we all) in the process of forever improving our practices. The only programmer I'd worry about is one who didn't think they could improve on code they had written 5 years ago. | |
| Jul 20, 2012 at 12:41 | comment | added | Joshua Smith | The 135 files do generally group related methods, but that (to me) still doesn't make this a good idea. I want to get this system under test but stubbing/mocking the 800-method hydra is going to be an ugly pain in the ass. | |
| Jul 20, 2012 at 12:13 | comment | added | Ryathal | @BillK if you wait ten years what you know will probably be the current "in" design philosophy. | |
| Jul 19, 2012 at 19:46 | comment | added | Bill K | Refactoring procedural code into OO generally has that problem--I think that fixing this will be a huge task and teaching the team to code properly even huger, on top of that Joshua will be blamed for everything that happens over the next year (and beyond) if he does convince them to refactor. This is why nobody ever pushes too hard to do refactors like this (at least not once they have seen the results). Also if you think it's a fine design--well--revisit this answer in 5 years and let us know what you think then (Seems I relearn everything I know about design every 5 years or so). | |
| Jul 19, 2012 at 19:12 | history | answered | Ryathal | CC BY-SA 3.0 |