On 9/26/06, Chiusano Joseph <chiusano_joseph@...> wrote:
>> "If you have a procedure with ten parameters, you probably missed
>> some." -- Alan Perlis
> "If your functions have more than five parameters, your data
structures suck."
-- Ray Essick, or so I've been told
"If your functions have 0 parameters, you have no input or output."
-- Anonymous
OFF-TOPIC
I love how modern OOP programming work. Your atributes are visible on
your methods like tiny globals :D, but withouth the 99% side effects of
real globals.
"Code evolve to become more flexible, inflexible code break" -- Eloy
Adding more parameters to a functions is horrible. Mean your code is
not flexible. Mean you need to make changes on existing, working,
debugged code, that is very expensive and ineficient.
I dont care the number of parameters a function have, 0 (like most OOP
methods), 2 or 30 (useable if you can name then), but If a simple
change on functionality force you to change the number of parameters,
is bad.
A horryble, buggy, hacky way to acchieve that is pass parameters as a
array, or as a structure, or directly use objects. So I agree
with the "Ray Essick" one. Structures are for complex stuff, rarelly
change stuff. And this stuff is a feature "rarelly change stuff". (Can
I say "stable" on this mail list?)
// I am sorry my bad english.
Tei
