If companies will have to pay a license fee to the consortium of AV companies named, will that not be passed on to the customers buying AV programs.
Does this spell the end of free (as in beer) AV programs such as AVG from www.grisoft.cz or http://www.grisoft.com
Re:Who Actually USES These Patterns?
on
Design Patterns
·
· Score: 1
I remember one meeting with a couple of developers who described a really powerful feature they were coding. This included complex diagrams of what the system did, and a number of worked examples.
After about half an hour of this I clicked and asked "You mean you are using the composite pattern?" -- perplexed silence, and finally a nod and a "Yes". So one can use patterns to describe in 3 seconds which otherwise would take over half an hour.
By the way, since then I have learnt to suffer attemps at intellectual intimidation much more diplomatically:-)
The best design for a given problem is the least conceptually complex one.
If I can satisfy the requirements of a problem with 2 patterns, that is better than using say 7 objects.
The rationale behind this is the more items need to be implemented the longer it takes. More importantly the number of opportunities for bugs as the result of getting the interaction between two objects wrong rises quadratically.
By contrast using the two patterns an experienced coder will have to deal with two items, the coder is already familiar with, which then need combining.
The notion of simplicity also describes how 'throwing in a few patterns' makes a design worse. If you are so inclined, maybe, you could develop a more formal weighting model assinging difficulty factors to a simple object (1), a composite pattern (2), an association class (3).
Of course 'the pointy haired boss' has a tradition to reward complex solutions, which may be measured in terms of the number of patterns, objects, or even lines of code.
Slashdot Mirror
Does this spell the end of free (as in beer) AV programs such as AVG from www.grisoft.cz or http://www.grisoft.com
I remember one meeting with a couple of developers who described a really powerful feature they were coding. This included complex diagrams of what the system did, and a number of worked examples.
:-)
After about half an hour of this I clicked and asked "You mean you are using the composite pattern?" -- perplexed silence, and finally a nod and a "Yes". So one can use patterns to describe in 3 seconds which otherwise would take over half an hour.
By the way, since then I have learnt to suffer attemps at intellectual intimidation much more diplomatically
The best design for a given problem is the least conceptually complex one.
If I can satisfy the requirements of a problem with 2 patterns, that is better than using say 7 objects.
The rationale behind this is the more items need to be implemented the longer it takes. More importantly the number of opportunities for bugs as the result of getting the interaction between two objects wrong rises quadratically.
By contrast using the two patterns an experienced coder will have to deal with two items, the coder is already familiar with, which then need combining.
The notion of simplicity also describes how 'throwing in a few patterns' makes a design worse. If you are so inclined, maybe, you could develop a more formal weighting model assinging difficulty factors to a simple object (1), a composite pattern (2), an association class (3).
Of course 'the pointy haired boss' has a tradition to reward complex solutions, which may be measured in terms of the number of patterns, objects, or even lines of code.