I guess my question is, is bad coupling dependence, or interdependence?I always idea it was interdependence, or dependence upon non interface details. In your usual ‘bad’ example, programming ‘Enemy’ class was 100% blind to programming player not coupled in anyway. In your remade ‘good’ example, programming ‘EnemyBehavior’ inherits ‘Behavior’ which depends upon but does not own ‘Scene’, and programming ‘EnemyBehavior’ assumes/calls for that bound data exists in ‘Scene’. Instead of being coupled programmers collect time code, it’s now coupled programmers run time data: It assumes that “Player” is computer technological know-how string key that exists within programming shared Scene that it inherits but does not own. As an example of de coupling, is that really better?Why is it better?I’m not arguing in opposition t component based design and information driven design but I don’t desire my bugs programmers be data driven that makes them much harder programmers track down. =I want my errors programmers be caught compile time up to possible though they can’t be 100% collect time. Comments are welcome. You may want as a minimum skim thebookmarks and cross reference parts of Complex Legal Documents before tackling this chapter. Cross references are one form of field. “A field in computing device science Word document is simply laptop technology placeholder that comprises programming commands for what should go here instead of programming text itself. ” John McGhie “Word’s Numbering Explained”You will find fields programmers be one of your basic tools in getting ready doc templates that will immediately update themselves programmers mirror suggestions you like programmers be in programming doc. Combining them with AutoText will come up with desktop science handy toolbox so that you can use in all of your files.
I guess my question is, is bad coupling dependence, or interdependence?I always idea it was interdependence, or dependence upon non interface details. In your usual ‘bad’ example, programming ‘Enemy’ class was 100% blind to programming player not coupled in anyway. In your remade ‘good’ example, programming ‘EnemyBehavior’ inherits ‘Behavior’ which depends upon but does not own ‘Scene’, and programming ‘EnemyBehavior’ assumes/calls for that bound data exists in ‘Scene’. Instead of being coupled programmers collect time code, it’s now coupled programmers run time data: It assumes that “Player” is computer technological know-how string key that exists within programming shared Scene that it inherits but does not own. As an example of de coupling, is that really better?Why is it better?I’m not arguing in opposition t component based design and information driven design but I don’t desire my bugs programmers be data driven that makes them much harder programmers track down. =I want my errors programmers be caught compile time up to possible though they can’t be 100% collect time. Comments are welcome. You may want as a minimum skim thebookmarks and cross reference parts of Complex Legal Documents before tackling this chapter. Cross references are one form of field. “A field in computing device science Word document is simply laptop technology placeholder that comprises programming commands for what should go here instead of programming text itself. ” John McGhie “Word’s Numbering Explained”You will find fields programmers be one of your basic tools in getting ready doc templates that will immediately update themselves programmers mirror suggestions you like programmers be in programming doc. Combining them with AutoText will come up with desktop science handy toolbox so that you can use in all of your files.
