|
And of course with the original post now deleted the joke that has spawned this pointless conversation has lost all of its context.
Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them.
|
|
|
|
|
chriselst wrote: spawned this pointless conversation
So it’s business as usual.
Common sense is admitting there is cause and effect and that you can exert some control over what you understand.
|
|
|
|
|
|
For some reason I think he doesn't have a wife.
|
|
|
|
|
"He believes the selfies do not give people the chance to form life-long relationships with celebrities, which he says he has had since 1977, when his hobby started."
Can we spell STALKER, children?
There's a lot of scary people in the world.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
In bed last night, I dreamt a wonderful improvement to the design of some software I'm working on.
It would clean it up, move the code into it's appropriate classes, make it all beautiful.
So I have just coded it.
Or at least, I coded 3/4 of it. That was the point when I thought "Hang on a moment, you can't have abstract static methods in C#". 
Bugger.
Note to self: don't listen to me when I'm sleepy.
Anyone else done this? Constructed a massive edifice of beautiful code in your mind, only to find when you have got sufficient caffeine in your system that it has a fatal, fundamental, flaw?
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952)
Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
|
If you started to dream of coding you have only two options - doctor or vacation...
I'm not questioning your powers of observation; I'm merely remarking upon the paradox of asking a masked man who he is. (V)
|
|
|
|
|
Check your passport photo:
The 1st law of passport photos: The more you look like your passport photo, the more you need vacation
|
|
|
|
|
More times than I care to recall.
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: you can't have abstract static methods in C# this universe
|
|
|
|
|
It's actually a reasonable concept if you allow static inheritance (i.e. static virtual in C# speak), and that's a really useful concept that is missing in C#. How many times have you had to create an instanced service class, even though it has no state (so should be static), because you can't have static members in an interface or virtual static members in a base class?
|
|
|
|
|
0 times. I've wished that interfaces could contain static methods so that T.someFunction could exist for generics (constrained to that interface), but that's a completely separate issue. (that can't work in C# of course)
How is "static virtual" even a reasonable concept? No instance = no vptr = no dynamic dispatch.
modified 12-Jun-14 7:29am.
|
|
|
|
|
You're thinking too much about the C++ style implementation. There's actually no reason why you can't have vtable entries for static methods, though, even using that model – they'd just get passed nothing for the instance parameter. You just have to choose a different way of determining the type that should get dispatched, instead of using the instance's dynamic type, for example the declaration type of the method which was originally called.
Delphi goes some way towards this but it doesn't really work well because it doesn't sort out the dispatch properly.
|
|
|
|
|
BobJanova wrote: There's actually no reason why you can't have vtable entries for static methods
Ok fair enough, obviously you can put anything in there, including random bytes, but that then brings us to:
BobJanova wrote: You just have to choose a different way of determining the type that should get dispatched, instead of using the instance's dynamic type,
I don't really see any options there, but that might be because I don't understand exactly what you mean by this:
BobJanova wrote: the declaration type of the method which was originally called.
|
|
|
|
|
Ok so let's have an example.
public static class BaseService {
public static void LoadData() {
Console.WriteLine(GetDataSource());
}
protected virtual static string GetDataSource();
}
public static class FileService : BaseService {
protected override static string GetDataSource() { return "file.dat"; }
}
public static class DatabaseService : BaseService {
protected override static string GetDataSource() { return "database"; }
}
... and calling code
void Run() {
DatabaseService.LoadData();
FileService.LoadData();
}
This would print "database" and "file.dat", because the class used for the vtable lookups would be taken from the data type used for the call (i.e. DatabaseService.LoadData). That would be resolved at compile time and based on the static declaration type used in the call, not dynamic object type lookups as with instance dispatch.
A related good idea is the ability to pass service classes around and dispatch off them:
void Run(Class<BaseService> service) {
service.LoadData();
}
... called like Run(DatabaseService) which would bake in the type for dispatch.
|
|
|
|
|
|
harold aptroot wrote: no vptr
Don't get hung up on how current languages are implemented.
I too would like a language that allows static members in interfaces and abstracts. If a Bright compiler developer wanted to make this happen, I'm sure he could, it would likely have to be very different from current implementations. (It's way beyond my skills of course.)
You'll never get very far if all you do is follow instructions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh my, I've been Osmosian-rolled. 
You'll never get very far if all you do is follow instructions.
|
|
|
|
|
My anti-virus considered it as a trojan horse.
|
|
|
|
|
I once coded a class function in C++ that calls realloc() or malloc(), based on whether "this" points to null. It then deletes this and returns This.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not only that, it calls _msize() on the this pointer and checks against another size parameter for the realloc.
The last member in the class was a 0-byte array, for which the _msize() of the pointer minus size of other class members gave the array size.
|
|
|
|
|
BobJanova wrote: static inheritance (i.e. static virtual in C# speak), and that's a really useful concept that is missing in C#
Couldn't you use a singleton of some related class hierarchy that implements the "static" code?
We can program with only 1's, but if all you've got are zeros, you've got nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
Well sure, but that's obviously working around a language limitation. If you're making instances of classes that store no state, you should be using static inheritance instead, and the only reason we don't is that it's not supported.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
