Timeline for Why would a type be coupled with its builder?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 12, 2017 at 7:31 | history | edited | CommunityBot | replaced http://programmers.stackexchange.com/ with https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/ | |
| May 6, 2016 at 3:56 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackProgrammer/status/728433175765000192 | ||
| May 5, 2016 at 2:39 | comment | added | Robert Harvey | The coupling seems almost of secondary importance. | |
| May 5, 2016 at 1:47 | comment | added | Robert Harvey | I'm not impressed by the "too many constructor arguments" argument. But I'm even less impressed by both of these builder examples. Perhaps its because the examples are too simple to demonstrate non-trivial behavior, but the Java example reads like a convoluted fluent interface, and the C# example is just a roundabout way to implement properties. Neither example does any form of parameter validation; a constructor would at least validate the type and number of arguments provided, which means the constructor with too many arguments wins. | |
| May 5, 2016 at 1:06 | answer | added | null | timeline score: 1 | |
| May 5, 2016 at 0:48 | vote | accept | Mathieu Guindon | ||
| May 5, 2016 at 0:30 | answer | added | Old Fat Ned | timeline score: 4 | |
| May 4, 2016 at 19:50 | comment | added | Andres F. | @PhilipKendall It reads like a rant, yes, but at its core there is a valid on-topic question. Maybe the rant could be edited out? | |
| May 4, 2016 at 18:29 | answer | added | JimmyJames | timeline score: 8 | |
| May 4, 2016 at 18:14 | answer | added | DeadMG | timeline score: 0 | |
| May 4, 2016 at 17:37 | answer | added | Jeff Bowman | timeline score: 23 | |
| May 4, 2016 at 16:58 | comment | added | Mast | @PhilipKendall It reeks of curiosity to me. | |
| May 4, 2016 at 16:58 | comment | added | Mathieu Guindon | @PhilipKendall maybe a little. But I'm genuinely interested in understanding why every Java builder implementation has that tight coupling. | |
| May 4, 2016 at 16:56 | comment | added | Philip Kendall | And this "question" reeks of just being a rant... | |
| May 4, 2016 at 16:53 | history | asked | Mathieu Guindon | CC BY-SA 3.0 |