Survey Results

Ennis Ray Lynch, Jr. wrote:

One of the fundamental principles of Object Oriented design is data hiding. If you are directly accessing members outside of a class then you are violating a philosophy and your code can be rewritten to be more maintainable.

Ennis Ray Lynch, Jr. wrote:

If you are accessing members in a class you do not need with as you are already withing the namespace.

Ennis Ray Lynch, Jr. wrote:

If you are accessing members outside of a class you have to ask yourself the question ... Can these operations be contained within this class rather than requiring my code to have intimate knowledge of the class, 9 times out of ten the answer is yes. In which case using the with keyword is more typing as it would only be one line of code to instruct the class to do it's operation.

Ennis Ray Lynch, Jr. wrote:

Bottom line: In any case where someone is using a with there is a manner in which to write the code without the with that is better engineered.

Ennis Ray Lynch, Jr. wrote:

My claim is that in all cases you can write a better design without with than with with. To refute my claim I challenge you to come up with a scenario that shows otherwise.

MyWindow.Title = "blah";
MyWindow.Width = 640;
MyWindow.Height = 480;
MyWindow.BackgroundColor = Green;

MyEmployee.DoAction(Fire);
MyEmployee.DoAction(TellEmployeHesNotFired);
MyEmployee.GetAction(EmployeePissedOff);
MyEmployee.DoAction(TellEmployeeToTakeAJoke);

MyWindow myWindow = new MyWindow("blah", 640, 480, Green);

myWindow.Initialize("blah", 640, 480, Green);

myEmployee.BeginWorkFlow(sillyWorkFlow);

public class Employee{

protected void DoAction(IAction action);

public void BeginWorkFlow(IWorkflow workflow)
   foreach(IAction action in workflow){
      DoAction(action);
   }
}

Ennis Ray Lynch, Jr. wrote:

While I cannot say whether the approach below is the best possible approach it is clearly better alternative than your example and I spent less time coming up with them.

Ennis Ray Lynch, Jr. wrote:

You missed by point by a mile.

Ennis Ray Lynch, Jr. wrote:

Shifting the load is designed primarily to offload the work onto items that have more reason to understand their workings. What we have here is a difference in design philosophy

MyEmployee.DoAction(Fire);
MyEmployee.DoAction(TellEmployeHesNotFired);
MyEmployee.GetAction(EmployeePissedOff);
MyEmployee.DoAction(TellEmployeeToTakeAJoke);

With foo.many.layers.of.complexity.bar
   .PropertyA = "String"
   .MethodB(params)
End With

Dim tempBar as Bar = foo.many.layers.of.complexity.bar

tempBar.PropertyA = "String"
tempBar.MethodB(params)

foo.many.layers.of.complexity.bar.PropertyA = "String"
foo.many.layers.of.complexity.bar.MethodB(params)

foo.many.layers.of.complexity.bar.PropertyA = "String"

object.we.did.not.design.but.must.use.PropertyA = "String"

TapiManager.Lines(0).Addresses(0).Calls(0).Features(0).CanPark

With rsEmployee
   .AddNew
   ![Name] = "John Doe"
   ![Title] = "Peon"
   ![Extension] = "123"
   .Update
End With

with TapiManager.Lines(0).Addresses(0).Calls(0).Features(0)
.CanPark
end with 

Ennis Ray Lynch, Jr. wrote:

if saving typing concern is the primary concern of a Software Developer

sucram wrote:

Just remember that the time that you save by using the with keyword will be lost by having to type those ridiculous if... then... end if statements.