🚀 go-pugleaf

>>>>> "E" == Ell  <ell@access4.digex.net> writes:

    E> Robert C. Martin (rmartin@oma.com) wrote:
    >> ...
    >> Certainly there are costs.  You have named them.  Your design is
    >> getting more complicated.  (Interesting isn't it.  When the design
    >> becomes more complex, the code gets simpler.  Complex problems require
    >> complex expressions.)  Your makefiles are more complex.  You need some
    >> way to manage all the source files.
    >> 
    >> Now ask yourself if there is a net gain.  Is the system overall easier
    >> to deal with?  

Oh absolutely.

In fact I was running up against the limits of complexity in my old
pre-OO days. Every change I made caused bugs elsewhere. At least that
problem is gone!

    E> In most cases where the complexity of a C++, or other oopl, project has
    E> been previously addressed, the solution can be made into a library -
    E> static or dynamic - which subsequent programmers can use with less
    E> complexity.  This is a major part of the component and object reuse
    E> motivation.  So that the design of similar future projects in the domain
    E> are not generally as visibly (code weight wise) complex.

Yes, that is what I am doing.
-- 
Edward Hartnett                 ejh@larry.gsfc.nasa.gov
* I don't speak for NASA or ARC, I just work for them! *
     Goddard Distributed Active Archive Center (DAAC)
Check out cool Earth Science data at: http://daac.gsfc.nasa.gov/


      [ Articles to moderate: mailto:c++-submit@netlab.cs.rpi.edu ]
      [  Read the C++ FAQ: http://www.connobj.com/cpp/cppfaq.htm  ]
      [  Moderation policy: http://www.connobj.com/cpp/guide.htm  ]
      [      Comments? mailto:c++-request@netlab.cs.rpi.edu       ]