Nathan Nobbe wrote:
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 5:47 AM, Tony Marston <tony@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
"Robert Cummings" <robert@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
While I agree that Interfaces are mostly a lot of extra code, I have to
also say that they are there primarily to enforce a contract between the
user of the interface and their classes that claim to implement the
interface. If someone creates a class that "Implements" an interface,
then when I have to go edit or use the class, it had better damn well
implement what it says it does :)
"enforcing a contract" is a lot of maningless gobbledegook. The simple
fact
is that it is possible to have an interface without ever using the term
"interface". Nothing extra is added by using the term "interface" (except
for effort) so there is absolutely no advantage in doing so. That is why I
say that the term "interface" is a waste of effort as absolutely nothng is
gained.
can u say dejavu ??
lets c if we can get another 100 post thread going like we did last year :D
this is turning into a dup.
-nathan
This is a holy war that is never going to end. It boils down to personal
and professional preferences. The fact of the matter is, if a company
uses these concepts and you don't know, understand, or execute that
knowledge in an interview, chances are you're not going to be hired. It
doesn't matter what your personal opinion is on the feature of the language.
Useless or not, if it's not your project, you don't get to make that
call. If it is your project, do whatever you want.
--
Jeremy Privett
C.E.O. & C.S.A.
Omega Vortex Corporation
http://www.omegavortex.net
Please note: This message has been sent with information that could be confidential and meant only for the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete all copies and inform us of the error as soon as possible. Thank you for your cooperation.
