Code Smells

Mark Seemann recently had a great post that, as most of his posts seem to do, challenges the average reader to re-think their reality a bit.  The post is titled “Is Layering Worth the Mapping”.  In the post Mark essentially details some of the grief and friction that developers face when they need to decouple two or more concepts by way of an abstraction. Mark takes the example of layering.  Layering is a one way coupling between two “layers” where the “higher-level” layer takes a dependency on abstractions in a “lower-level” layer.  Part of his example is a UI layer … Continue reading The Rat-hole of Object-oriented Mapping

I was recently involved in a project that involved some design-time configuration.  That design-time configuration was based on custom config sections. I didn’t really pay too much attention to it at the time because I don’t write my own custom config sections.  As I worked on the project and do what I usually do by refactoring and evolving the system to use various patterns and principles, I came to realize why I don’t use my own custom config sections. That realization came as I began refactoring code for dependency inversion.  As I progressed getting the majority object creation code to … Continue reading The Custom Configuration Section Code Smell

With polymorphism, object-oriented languages allow “…different data types to be handled using a uniform interface”.  Ad-hoc polymorphism is when you declare multiple methods of the same name but differ by the type of an argument.  For example: private static void Draw(Circle circle) { //… } private static void Draw(Square square) { //… } These are usually referred to as method overloads or method overloading.  Which Draw method that gets invoked would be decided upon at compile-time based on the type of the parameter passed to it. This is great, there are many situations where this is useful; but what about … Continue reading Using the dynamic Keyword in C# to Improve Object-Orientation