Is there a standard anti-pattern or something that could be referenced, to argue that when a system reaches 开发者_如何学Ca given complexity it will become unmaintainable and will collapse?
COM objects that implement many interfaces can end up suffering from the god object anti-pattern or end up full of tedious forwarding code:
I\'ve begun to notice something of an anti-pattern in my ASP.NET development. It bothers me because it feels like the right thing to do to maintain good design, but at the same time it smells wrong.
I came across an instance where a solution to a particular problem was to use a variable whose value when zero or above meant the system would use that value in a calculation but when less than zero w
Recently I took a look at some code I\'d committed to our version control system at work, and I found a bunch of it had been replaced (that\'s OK) but the old version was still there, commented out.
Consider an object Pers开发者_运维知识库on firstName lastName There is a proposal that would suggest that we use lastName = \"__NOLASTNAME\" for a celebrity with no last name.This seems like an ant
I am wondering if the following is bad use of the Observer pattern. I know the Subject is supposed to be the one and the listener the many. However, I could end up with more subjects in my application
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
I have just added an out bool parameter to a method I\'ve written in order 开发者_JAVA技巧to get a warning in to my UI. I\'ve used an out rather than getting the method itself to return false/true as
I have a class in a system that lists its purpose as \"This can either be seconds-from midnight. Or a time with a date.\"I have tried to explian how bad this is but I cant get my point accross. Do any
加载中,请稍侯......