Re: what is encapsulation in an interface ?
Lew wrote:
The API approach is less likely to have bugs, generally, than the
hand-written loop approach.
Ken Wesson wrote:
If you can find and demonstrate a bug in the loop I posted,
We can do that, in the very next loop you posted after making this arrogant
claim. That's enough to earn that concession you promised.
I'll concede this point, otherwise not. :)
And why the disingenuous smileys, hm?
Arne Vajh??j wrote:
Bullshit.
If I can post a correct piece of assembler code does that
make writing in assembler as safe as writing in Java?
No!
Not only that, but he posted another equally short loop that had several
flaws, to whit, not returning the same value as the lib method, not using
generics, not conserving memory in the same way (and not documenting the
unusual memory requirement), all in just a few lines of a so-called "tight
'for' loop". So the same poster who challenged us to find a flaw in one short
loop as if that invalidated the general argument, demonstrated the flaws of
his espoused approach in the very next short loop he posted. So by his own
example he proved the general point we are making, that using the API library
is safer than re-inventing functionality.
Thanks, Kenny boy!
--
Lew
Ceci n'est pas une pipe.