Author: Danniel Corbit
Date: 16:58:11 11/05/97
Go up one level in this thread
On November 05, 1997 at 12:09:42, Bas Hamstra wrote: > >>I don't recall saying there is one class only, but it is true that the >>Position class is the main one. I have no idea why a single-class >>program is not truely object-oriented (if that's what you mean). Why not >>? > >Oop, I don't know. Because if you would browse trhu the code it would >seem sort of a C program with all data global. There is no reason that this has to be the case. That is why we have public, protected, and private. The data will be visible only to the methods anyway. > Ok, distinction between >private and interface functions, but working with enourmos objects still >doesn't seem so handy? Shouldn't one work with smaller easier to >control "parts" somehow? There is very little relationship that I see between object count and "handyness." Imagine an object called chessgame. Chessgame could inherit from board, player, rule and piece or it could have instances of board, player, rule and piece. Either way the complexity is about the same whether we have a single object or an object pudding. [snip]
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.