Phillip: I think you must inhabit a far more perfect world than I do. You say, for instance, that: > ...-1 if this introduces a performance penalty [...] just to > support people who want to create deliberate Liskov violations. > I personally don't think that we should pander to Liskov > violators ... but in my world, people violate Liskov all the time, even in languages that attempt (unsuccessfully) to enforce it. [1] You say that: > I think one should adapt primarily to interfaces, and > interface-to-interface adaptation should be reserved for > non-lossy, non-noisy adapters. ... but in my world, half the time I'm using adaptation to correct for the fact that someone else's poorly-written code requests some class where it should have just used an interface. You seem to inhabit a world in which transitivity of adaptation can be enforced. But in my world, people occasionally misuse adaptation because they think they know what they're doing or because they're in a big hurry and it's the most convenient tool at hand. I wish I lived in your world, but I don't. -- Michael Chermside [1] - Except for Eiffel. Eiffel seems to do a pretty good job of enforcing it.
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4