• Fades@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      4 months ago

      Why are females typed differently than males instead of a base class human with a gender identity parameter? Why would human anything have a function called young?? What would that function even do???

      • purplemonkeymad@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        4 months ago

        HumanFemales and HumanM both inherit from the Ape base class, it’s from an older java code base. We tried to change it once but it turned out the person that had written had retired and any changes we made just broke stuff.

      • cheddar@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        The young method returns a boolean parameter. Females have a different type for obvious biological discrepancies that require extra functionality.

        • Fades@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          I can accept your second point, but in your PR I would absolutely request you to rename the method to isYoung, and then in making said comment I would then ask… what value isYoung providing, and where is the line between young and !young ultimately for trying to get the dev to reevaluate the design. It’s hyper specific in an obtuse manner and I think it hints at design flaws especially with the perspective of product evolution

      • qarbone@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        Could be a subclass. However, it should just be an ‘is’ method which is passed the array of [young, pretty] as input