Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 3rd Sep 2012 20:46 UTC, submitted by MOS6510
General Development I like this one: "By definition, a program is an entity that is run by the computer. It talks directly to the CPU and the OS. Code that does not talk directly to the CPU and the OS, but is instead run by some other program that does talk directly to the CPU and the OS, is not a program; it's a script." Here's the other eleven.
Thread beginning with comment 533762
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Comment by Soulbender
by satsujinka on Tue 4th Sep 2012 06:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Soulbender"
satsujinka
Member since:
2010-03-11

None of the things I mentioned do it by default (you have to make the decision to have spaghetti code.) try/catch/finally does it by default. That's the whole reason you people use it.

The definition of OO matters when we want to have serious discussions about it. It's sort of hard to judge the merits of something that lacks a solid definition.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

That's the whole reason you people use it.


"you people"?

Reply Parent Score: 3

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

try/catch/finally does it by default


Try/catch does not automatically create spaghetti code any more than return values and message structures.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[5]: Comment by Soulbender
by kwan_e on Tue 4th Sep 2012 08:14 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Soulbender"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

"try/catch/finally does it by default


Try/catch does not automatically create spaghetti code any more than return values and message structures.
"

Most try/catch (in Java especially) are for exceptions that normally people don't care enough about anyway, and so they catch them where needed and ignore.

So in terms of ignoring errors, they're not different. I'd prefer exceptions though if I do want to handle errors.

Reply Parent Score: 3