let x=x » oo

case “String” : still FAIL

Scot Mcphee — Mon, 07 Nov 2011 22:18:41 +0000

You know, just because Java is going to gain a switch statement that works on java.util.String still doesn’t make it right. It’s still a code smell for an OO design fail. Although the diamond syntax and lambdas are way overdue (see article).

Java is not the new COBOL | Craig Tataryn’s .plan:

A switch statement that I’ll actually use
Yes, finally my Java brethren we have a switch statement that actually works on Strings!
switch (lang) {
   case "Java" :
      out.println("I like frameworks!");
      break;
   case "Ruby" :
      out.println("I like Pabst Blue Ribbon!");
      break;
   case "PHP" :
      out.println("I like WordPress!");
      break;
}
My God this has been a long time coming.

Inherit this!

Scot Mcphee — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 21:15:26 +0000

Extends is the most misused keyword in the Java lexicon.

In my constant and probably losing battle against poor design, I keep finding systems with a rather rich abundance of implementation inheritance. I’ve actually recently seen systems with seven or more levels of inheritance, where just about every object extends some class that (eventually) extends AbstractBaseObject extends BaseObject. All classes. No interfaces (unless some specification demands them), or sometimes, no interfaces with any methods declared.

I think if I had my way, I’d remove the extends keyword from Java and only leave implements. I guess it’s just a polemical fantasy of mine but there’s plenty or programmers out there still implementing the worst sort of bad juju with extension.

As this post rightly points out – the purpose (as opposed to a side-effect) of extension is not to enable re-use. Extension is a declaration of a classification system in your domain. Is-A as opposed to Has-A. A Canine is-a Mammal which has-a Placenta. It’s not called a type system for nothing, you know. You’re making a taxonomy.

Dependency Injection: “Don’t look for things!”

Scot Mcphee — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 11:49:48 +0000

Here’s a piece of advice I definitely can take to heart.

From Google testing blog:

*Clean Code Talk Series*
*Topic: Don’t Look For Things!*

http://googletesting.blogspot.com/2008/11/clean-code-talks-dependency-injection.html

Recently I’ve been doing maintenance work on a system that has a lot of custom-rolled code to do stuff like, look up EJB Home and Remote references. Even though parts of the system are five years old, even then there were a bunch of accepted patterns for getting this sort of work done. However there’s lots of motion, but very little movement. Even mis-named patterns in places (Delegates that aren’t, and so on).