meta user
network profile
| bio | website | |
|---|---|---|
| location | United States | |
| age | ||
| visits | member for | 10 months |
| seen | May 31 at 16:37 | |
| stats | profile views | 4 |
|
Jan 25 |
awarded | Informed |
|
Aug 17 |
comment |
Explanation of the Google Gravity trick It might be interesting to note (if you don't know already) that the author of the demo in question is the primary author of three.js, and a SO user. |
|
Aug 17 |
awarded | Teacher |
|
Aug 16 |
awarded | Supporter |
|
Aug 13 |
comment |
Don't Use “Static” in C#? Er. I'm dumb. You meant a static class for HOLDING extension methods, which, of course, is how you have to do them. Yes, of course, you want a static class for that purpose. That slipped my mind: and this goes to show that C# was not intended for IoC. :) |
|
Aug 13 |
comment |
Don't Use “Static” in C#? You and I agree on the general point that you should choose the right tool for the right job and not be handcuffed by philosophy. If, however, there is a well established culture in place in your project of pure IoC/DI, it'll hurt just as much as converting a traditionally top-down solution to IoC/DI. Engineering needs to consider the transitional costs. By the by, I don't think extension methods quite get you there. I think a better solution for IoCish behavior with static classes would be to have multiple classes chosen between at compile time with preprocessor directives, C style |
|
Aug 13 |
answered | Don't Use “Static” in C#? |
