Why setters quietly violate object-oriented design Setters break one of the pillars of object-oriented programming: encapsulation. It does not matter whether they come in the pedestrian JavaBean form: public void setX(int x) or in the more elegant (but equally flawed) C# disguise: public int X { set; } Syntactic differences aside,
Somebody who deleted himself posted this comment about another Microservices craze critique. I reproduced it below for the sake of hoarding: "Those who do not understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly." In his book The Art of Unix Programming that was first published in 2003, Eric
“Undefined Behavior” is one of those frustrating aspects of the C Language. It leads to defensive programming and avoiding some of the coolest features of the language. Well, today I was struct, again, by such "undefinitions"...
Today I was playing (never competing, please!) in a Code Chef programming contest and was dismayed when comparing my timings with some other competitors. Theirs were way shorter, and I saw no way to improve my O(N) solution because I HAD to read an array of values. My processing
How about a hand-made rotating backup solution?
Binary is NOT a sequence of '0' and '1' characters. This is FAKE!