From: Peter Duniho on 3 Feb 2010 15:01 JAM wrote: > [...] > Regarding your file tree structure example I'm one of those amatour > programmers raised in times when 5 kB of memory was considered to be > quite a lot. That was some thirty years ago. It's time to move on. I did, so I know you can too. :) > Therefore I cringe when I see data structures that carry > unused fileds. I tend to automatically think about stripping such > fields from the data structure. I treat this as a challenge to have > some fun. I don't program computers for living so I can afford this. Afford what? Afford insisting that in spite of not being a professional programmer, you know better than the professionals how a language should be designed and used? I mean no offense, but in this discussion you have repeatedly insisted that your own point of view is the correct one, in spite of there being a lot of evidence to the contrary, and refusing to accept that the professionals might in fact have something useful to offer to you in the way of insight into good programming practices. In any case, a) if you really don't want empty fields in your data structures, that's fine�you still don't need to access protected members from outside the class where they exist, and b) as a person using .NET you really need to get over the mentality of conserving data at all costs, because the whole point of the managed programming environment is to trade efficiency for productivity. Pete
First
|
Prev
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 Prev: Globalized propertyGrid description Next: Sort Error in Crystal Report Code with VS 2005 |