<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: If this is Object Calisthenics, I think I&#8217;ll stay on the couch</title>
	<atom:link href="http://dubroy.com/blog/if-this-is-object-calisthenics-i-think-ill-stay-on-the-couch/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://dubroy.com/blog/if-this-is-object-calisthenics-i-think-ill-stay-on-the-couch/</link>
	<description>programming, usability, and interaction design</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 07 Mar 2010 08:29:58 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Dubroy.com/blog - Method length: Are short methods actually worse?</title>
		<link>http://dubroy.com/blog/if-this-is-object-calisthenics-i-think-ill-stay-on-the-couch/comment-page-1/#comment-26493</link>
		<dc:creator>Dubroy.com/blog - Method length: Are short methods actually worse?</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Mar 2009 21:12:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dubroy.com/blog/2008/05/06/if-this-is-object-calisthenics-i-think-ill-stay-on-the-couch/#comment-26493</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;[...] Last year I wrote a post called If this is Object Calisthenics, I think I’ll stay on the couch where I argued (among other things) that making your methods as short as possible is NOT a good idea. My justification was that it just makes the code more complicated: &#8220;That which obscures my code is bad.&#8221; But this is even better&#8230;actual empirical evidence. [...]&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Last year I wrote a post called If this is Object Calisthenics, I think I’ll stay on the couch where I argued (among other things) that making your methods as short as possible is NOT a good idea. My justification was that it just makes the code more complicated: &#8220;That which obscures my code is bad.&#8221; But this is even better&#8230;actual empirical evidence. [...]</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: owen</title>
		<link>http://dubroy.com/blog/if-this-is-object-calisthenics-i-think-ill-stay-on-the-couch/comment-page-1/#comment-12508</link>
		<dc:creator>owen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Jun 2008 21:29:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dubroy.com/blog/2008/05/06/if-this-is-object-calisthenics-i-think-ill-stay-on-the-couch/#comment-12508</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;From what I&#039;ve seen it comes down to alot of &quot;what if&quot; programming.  Trying to teach someone a &quot;fix all&quot; solution without giving proper examples and use-cases will only make you look stupid to people who &quot;understand&quot;.  There is a process of learning that is missing from the article.  People get good at OOP rather quickly, but there is a point after that in which they just get crazy and that is a perfect example of crazy.  You should never teach a noob to do that.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>From what I&#8217;ve seen it comes down to alot of &#8220;what if&#8221; programming.  Trying to teach someone a &#8220;fix all&#8221; solution without giving proper examples and use-cases will only make you look stupid to people who &#8220;understand&#8221;.  There is a process of learning that is missing from the article.  People get good at OOP rather quickly, but there is a point after that in which they just get crazy and that is a perfect example of crazy.  You should never teach a noob to do that.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Working Through the &#8220;OO&#8217;s Small Classes and Short Methods&#8221; Exercise : So Jake Says:</title>
		<link>http://dubroy.com/blog/if-this-is-object-calisthenics-i-think-ill-stay-on-the-couch/comment-page-1/#comment-12184</link>
		<dc:creator>Working Through the &#8220;OO&#8217;s Small Classes and Short Methods&#8221; Exercise : So Jake Says:</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 May 2008 04:01:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dubroy.com/blog/2008/05/06/if-this-is-object-calisthenics-i-think-ill-stay-on-the-couch/#comment-12184</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;[...] These constraints are tough when you try to adhere to all of them at once. They have also received their fair share of criticism and teasing from the mainstream blogging community. [...]&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] These constraints are tough when you try to adhere to all of them at once. They have also received their fair share of criticism and teasing from the mainstream blogging community. [...]</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joel Neely</title>
		<link>http://dubroy.com/blog/if-this-is-object-calisthenics-i-think-ill-stay-on-the-couch/comment-page-1/#comment-11936</link>
		<dc:creator>Joel Neely</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 May 2008 18:12:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dubroy.com/blog/2008/05/06/if-this-is-object-calisthenics-i-think-ill-stay-on-the-couch/#comment-11936</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;I have a longstanding meta-observation that any reaction of the form &quot;At first glance, this is obviously bogus&quot; is itself, at first glance, obviously bogus. (Including the one I just stated. ;-)&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Although passive voice sometimes communicates effectively, I have learned to improve my writing by deliberately asking myself, &quot;How could I rewrite that paragraph without using any passive verbs?&quot; Similarly, after reading a bit of General Semantics, I found it very instructive to try to write and speak without using any form of the word &quot;is&quot;. Both exercises were worthwhile, even if I don&#039;t do all of my writing under those conditions.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Some people reacted to Dijkstra&#039;s criticism of the &quot;goto&quot; statement by rejecting it as unreasonable or impossible. Some reacted by proposing brute-force goto-ectomy practices that (further) obscured the structure of the code. But some took it as a challenge to rethink program design practices. Few languages today offer &quot;goto&quot; at all, much less as a primary composition mechanism.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Although I&#039;ve been doing software for about 40 years now, I found it useful to reconsider some code I&#039;d recently written in view of the constraints of the exercise under discussion. In one case, by forcing myself to remove one layer of conditional nesting, I recognized a hidden symmetry that I had not consciously noticed before.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Maybe some of us are so good as programmers that there&#039;s no room for improvement or re-thinking. I make no such claim for myself. Instead, I found the exercise instructive.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have a longstanding meta-observation that any reaction of the form &#8220;At first glance, this is obviously bogus&#8221; is itself, at first glance, obviously bogus. (Including the one I just stated. ;-)</p>

<p>Although passive voice sometimes communicates effectively, I have learned to improve my writing by deliberately asking myself, &#8220;How could I rewrite that paragraph without using any passive verbs?&#8221; Similarly, after reading a bit of General Semantics, I found it very instructive to try to write and speak without using any form of the word &#8220;is&#8221;. Both exercises were worthwhile, even if I don&#8217;t do all of my writing under those conditions.</p>

<p>Some people reacted to Dijkstra&#8217;s criticism of the &#8220;goto&#8221; statement by rejecting it as unreasonable or impossible. Some reacted by proposing brute-force goto-ectomy practices that (further) obscured the structure of the code. But some took it as a challenge to rethink program design practices. Few languages today offer &#8220;goto&#8221; at all, much less as a primary composition mechanism.</p>

<p>Although I&#8217;ve been doing software for about 40 years now, I found it useful to reconsider some code I&#8217;d recently written in view of the constraints of the exercise under discussion. In one case, by forcing myself to remove one layer of conditional nesting, I recognized a hidden symmetry that I had not consciously noticed before.</p>

<p>Maybe some of us are so good as programmers that there&#8217;s no room for improvement or re-thinking. I make no such claim for myself. Instead, I found the exercise instructive.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Patrick</title>
		<link>http://dubroy.com/blog/if-this-is-object-calisthenics-i-think-ill-stay-on-the-couch/comment-page-1/#comment-11808</link>
		<dc:creator>Patrick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 May 2008 21:30:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dubroy.com/blog/2008/05/06/if-this-is-object-calisthenics-i-think-ill-stay-on-the-couch/#comment-11808</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;@Waterbreath: Ha, I&#039;d never heard that one before! Found a writeup on THE wiki: http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?RavioliCode&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Waterbreath: Ha, I&#8217;d never heard that one before! Found a writeup on THE wiki: <a href="http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?RavioliCode" rel="nofollow">http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?RavioliCode</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Waterbreath</title>
		<link>http://dubroy.com/blog/if-this-is-object-calisthenics-i-think-ill-stay-on-the-couch/comment-page-1/#comment-11807</link>
		<dc:creator>Waterbreath</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 May 2008 18:31:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dubroy.com/blog/2008/05/06/if-this-is-object-calisthenics-i-think-ill-stay-on-the-couch/#comment-11807</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;
  &lt;p&gt;You’re just writing spaghetti code by a different name&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/blockquote&gt;

&lt;p&gt;We call it &quot;ravioli code&quot; where I&#039;m from...  Code pasta with a proliferation of object pockets instead of procedural noodles.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote>
  <p>You’re just writing spaghetti code by a different name</p>
</blockquote>

<p>We call it &#8220;ravioli code&#8221; where I&#8217;m from&#8230;  Code pasta with a proliferation of object pockets instead of procedural noodles.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Raoul Duke</title>
		<link>http://dubroy.com/blog/if-this-is-object-calisthenics-i-think-ill-stay-on-the-couch/comment-page-1/#comment-11595</link>
		<dc:creator>Raoul Duke</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 May 2008 20:02:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dubroy.com/blog/2008/05/06/if-this-is-object-calisthenics-i-think-ill-stay-on-the-couch/#comment-11595</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Not that you or anybody asked me, but I think those 3 points of the exercise are very good food for thought (and they&#039;ve been much on my mind recently even before I came across all this). Think &quot;types&quot; and &quot;functions&quot; instead of &quot;objects&quot; and &quot;methods&quot;, if that helps any; I think the ideas are just as valid there.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Of course, everything can be taken to an extreme, so one has to know where and how to dial it in. E.g. I would guess in Java that putting the units (e.g. mph) into your types would suck pretty quickly, whereas putting them into the variable names wouldn&#039;t be so bad and would help address the underlying concerns. I think that is an indictment of Java rather than a great thing, tho, that you can&#039;t do lots of types conveniently.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Not that you or anybody asked me, but I think those 3 points of the exercise are very good food for thought (and they&#8217;ve been much on my mind recently even before I came across all this). Think &#8220;types&#8221; and &#8220;functions&#8221; instead of &#8220;objects&#8221; and &#8220;methods&#8221;, if that helps any; I think the ideas are just as valid there.</p>

<p>Of course, everything can be taken to an extreme, so one has to know where and how to dial it in. E.g. I would guess in Java that putting the units (e.g. mph) into your types would suck pretty quickly, whereas putting them into the variable names wouldn&#8217;t be so bad and would help address the underlying concerns. I think that is an indictment of Java rather than a great thing, tho, that you can&#8217;t do lots of types conveniently.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mogens Heller Grabe</title>
		<link>http://dubroy.com/blog/if-this-is-object-calisthenics-i-think-ill-stay-on-the-couch/comment-page-1/#comment-11592</link>
		<dc:creator>Mogens Heller Grabe</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 May 2008 19:22:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dubroy.com/blog/2008/05/06/if-this-is-object-calisthenics-i-think-ill-stay-on-the-couch/#comment-11592</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;@Patrick: Yeah, I see.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;But I think for some people this kind of exercise might prove to be sort of an eye-opener or something. Sometimes you need to come up with restrictions or rules to break out of your (bad) habits.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Patrick: Yeah, I see.</p>

<p>But I think for some people this kind of exercise might prove to be sort of an eye-opener or something. Sometimes you need to come up with restrictions or rules to break out of your (bad) habits.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Patrick</title>
		<link>http://dubroy.com/blog/if-this-is-object-calisthenics-i-think-ill-stay-on-the-couch/comment-page-1/#comment-11583</link>
		<dc:creator>Patrick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 May 2008 17:41:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dubroy.com/blog/2008/05/06/if-this-is-object-calisthenics-i-think-ill-stay-on-the-couch/#comment-11583</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;@Jake Voytko: I&#039;m interested to hear what you think after doing the exercise.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Jake Voytko: I&#8217;m interested to hear what you think after doing the exercise.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Patrick</title>
		<link>http://dubroy.com/blog/if-this-is-object-calisthenics-i-think-ill-stay-on-the-couch/comment-page-1/#comment-11582</link>
		<dc:creator>Patrick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 May 2008 17:24:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dubroy.com/blog/2008/05/06/if-this-is-object-calisthenics-i-think-ill-stay-on-the-couch/#comment-11582</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;@Mogens Heller Grabe: Right, but if it&#039;s an exercise, then you need to make sure that it&#039;s working the right muscles, and not hurting your overall form. My belief is that these exercises are not working the right muscles.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Mogens Heller Grabe: Right, but if it&#8217;s an exercise, then you need to make sure that it&#8217;s working the right muscles, and not hurting your overall form. My belief is that these exercises are not working the right muscles.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
