Why you should never ever ever have Managers in your class name

Re:Why you should never ever ever have Managers in your clas... by SilasX on Sunday March 31, 2013 @09:15PM (#5470932)

I've heard it said that having any class name as [verb]-er is an OOP anti-pattern, as your objects shouldn't be simple nounifications of verbs.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why you should never ever ever have Managers in your clas... by Evbn on Sunday March 31, 2013 @11:07PM (#5471220)

That rules of thumb is arbitrary attempt to make code more like fancy English.

Why is "connection" OK but "connecter" bad?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why you should never ever ever have Managers in your clas... by SilasX on Monday April 01, 2013 @12:17AM (#5471405)

It's not the name per se that is the problem; the point is that an "-er" class is indicative that you're actually using a procedural rather than OO paradigm, and thus attempting to arbitrarily box up a bunch of actions into an object.

Neither connection nor connector would be good, under this view, if it's just a thin package around an imperative program ("COBOL written in Java").

[ Parent | on HN ]