Re: Did I write a good (efficient) program?

"Rick Smith" <ricksmith@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:l6KdnaVTeOZ762janZ2dnUVZ_rSrnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:65k1fkF2gdg4dU1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>
>> "Rick Smith" <ricksmith@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:3vednXJ8aMTLxWnanZ2dnUVZ_q2hnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >
>> > "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> > news:65fmhdF2fbsenU1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > [snip]
>> >> To modify existing functionality does NOT mean modifying a base
class.
> It
>> >> means extending (through inheritance) or over-riding existing
> behaviours.
>> >
>> > The priniples of object-oriented design do not include
>> > the use of inheritance to overcome inadequate or faulty
>> > design. In such cases, modifying a base class may be
>> > unavoidable.
>>
>> I have never encountered such a situation and do not expect to. (Guess
my
>> designs are not "inadequate" or "faulty"...:-))
>>
>> I really don't care about academic "principles of OO design" unless
they
> are
>> pertinent to the world in which I live and work; your statement above
is
>> not.
>>
>> My own principles (derived from over a decade of real world use) tell
me
> not
>> to modify a Base Class.
>>
>> So I don't.
>
> Therein lies the problem, Mr Dashwood! While you advocate
> the OO paradigm, you don't actually use it--preferring your own
> principles to those of the paradigm. <g>

And how is having things work properly, a "problem"?

I use the OO paradigm, I may differ with you over interpretation of  some 
aspects of it.

Fortunately, I don't need your or your Professor's approval, nor anything 
written in a text book, in order to make money with it.

No problem.

Pete.
-- 
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."