Talk:Loop-switch sequence

Wow that's bad. At some point, I'll bet that somebody asks for this one to be removed. Please don't. - Joshua

I wouldn't be surprised if someone does it, at least partly because you told them not to. — User:ACupOfCoffee @ 22:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Improving an article is better than deleting it. I've edited the article to hint at cases where the subject may not be an anti-pattern. --Damian Yerrick (☎) 07:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That first sentence needs to be changed! The word choice made me laugh. - Anon

Well change it, stupid.

Well, I have produced some bad code, using god-objects, saghetti code, methods in a class which is only ever called by a method in the class in which a method is located which it not relies on, and which method (the last emtnioned) called another method in the second class to read data from a file (in Java), but that was more caused by takign a simple program and adding methods and an extra class to handle file IO, and tehn more methods t handle otehr bright ideas: I have never managed to program something as wierd as that.

---

Ok, I'm the original author and I've gone back to make my point a bit clearer -- and less passionate, as I've finally achieved some emotional distance on the issue... I wrote the initial article after I found my fourth loop-switch-sequence at work. I was in a bit of a stop-the-madness mindset. :)

I don't think the coroutine was a good example, as it's a bit boutique and also general event-driven programming is a better and more familiar domain for explaining the correct loop-switch idiom.

thanks for the feedback! --Ping Bannon (☎)

--

The last two lines in each example

Why are those there? The last two lines of each example:

 int number = 2;
 int num = int.Parse (number.ToString ());

and

 int number = 2;
 int num = number;

solve no purpose but are distracting to the reader in my opinion. 83.236.169.222 (talk) 17:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]