To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
I've been working with a contractor (politically, I had nothing to do with him being hired for the project - I would have vetted him better, but he's actually being subcontracted to a third party who seem happy not to care.) He doesn't believe in inheritance. It drives me absolutely insane. He will do exactly as you say. He's very pattern orientated, but prefers using interfaces and single level hierarchies. I came from a Delphi background and I'm used to using interfaces to create a contract that is implemented in a class, but also creating hierarchies that build up reusable blocks of code. The flat namespace approach really doesn't make sense to me at all. Example: I have a requirement to implement a set of classes to process allocation of a table based set of prices, which differ by application. I personally would create a base class with the commonality in it, then build classes on top of that to implement the specifics. I would more than likely create an interface with the specific details for accessing any of the children generically, I'd utilise abstract and virtual methods/properties to ensure the interface could be applied at a level where it made sense. He on the other hand would create one interface and implement a new class for each different use. His argument is that inheritance causes complexity that can be avoided, but I've worked on some stupidly complex class hierarchies that were poorly designed and still simpler and easier to maintain that a class per implementation of the functionality with lots of boiler plate code included.
Edited 2013-01-18 14:04 UTC
henderson101,
It might be a matter of preference. I often find that I don't like the way inheritance is used and strongly prefer interfaces myself. This is one reason I like .net over C++. The "IS A" relationship and "HAS A" relationships often tread very thin lines and with the exception of polymorphism the differences become syntactic rather than expressive.





Member since:
2009-08-18
I agree that VB syntax isn't the best.
I have mostly written C#, Java, PHP and JavaScript. I have never coded in classic VB, So I tend to write VB like C#.
We have a lot of points in our code base (that is mostly inherited), where Try ... Catch is mis-used, and that is one of the better things I have to deal with.
* Functions doing more than one thing and multiple return values of the same type (usually string) which mean different things depending on how it is used.
* Very misleading variable names.
* Try ... Catch misused.
* Lack of understanding for some key OOP principles, a classic being two different types having say the first 5 properties and methods being exactly the same and having 2 or 3 properties that are different ... it is screaming to use inheritance, but it was just muddled together.
I could go on, but my main point was that any one of these problems aren't down to the language but down to lack of understanding of principles. I don't think any language magically fixes those.