Talk:Open–closed principle

Computing: Software / CompSci Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Mid-importance).

This article is supported by WikiProject Computer science (assessed as Mid-importance).

Things you can help WikiProject Computer science with:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests :
- Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Computer science, computing, and Internet
Cleanup :
- Computer science articles needing attention
- Computer science articles needing expert attention
Copyedit :
- Computing
Expand :
- Computer science
Infobox :
- Computer science articles without infoboxes
Maintain :
- Timeline of computing 2020–present
Photo :
- Find pictures for the biographies of computer scientists (see List of computer scientists)
- Computing articles needing images
Stubs :
- Computer science stubs
Unreferenced :
- WikiProject Computer science/Unreferenced BLPs
Project-related :
- Tag all relevant articles in Category:Computer science and sub-categories with {{WikiProject Computer science}}

This is a slightly modified version (to be consistent with other wikipedia articles) from foldoc.org[1]. Jgorman2 12:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"modified by extension"? Should not that be, modified by derivation (ie: thru a derived class)

The phrase "virtual inheritance" is a problem; should it be replaced with "delegation"? Baadams 19:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...or "interface inheritance"? Chrisahn 15:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The open-closed principle by Meyer does not say what the article suggests. It gives a different meaning of "closed", namely "available for use by other modules". What is described in the article is Martin's open-closed principle, which is only remotely related to Meyer's principle (Martins claim that he is just paraphrasing Meyer notwithstanding). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.248.121.147 (talk) 13:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've rewritten the Meyer section to (I hope) better reflect Meyer's thinking, which may clarify the differences between Meyer's principle and Martin's. --Chronodm (talk) 22:50, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that this principle is more leaning toward composition and as a concern about opening possibilities to extension via separation of concerns and leaving responsabilities to client code rather than hardcoding decisions in implementation (such as exception management, or settings), although the article seems to be more about inheritance stuff. Am I wrong about my understanding of this concept? Gauthier.segay (talk) 17:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC) User:gauthier.segay[reply]

open/closed principle and functional programming un Java (8)

In his book Functional programming in Java (ch. 4, page 68), Venkar Subramaniam claimed to have used this principle using Java lambdas, not inheritance. Maybe a new field for this principle. Ptyxs (talk)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Open/closed principle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:06, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 3 June 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved as requested per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 19:19, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Open/closed principle → Open–closed principle – With the en dash, per MOS:DASH. There are many ways in the world to do this, and even the sources cited in the article so far show both these variants and just a space. The WP standard is the en dash. The nav template in this article would also need a conforming tweak. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:20, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support – uncontroversial style fix, should have just been moved. Dicklyon (talk) 14:51, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If it had been at Open-closed principle (mistakenly using a hyphen) I would have just manually moved it. People are more apt to mount objections about slashes in computer-science contexts. While more often they're in proper names like CP/M, your average geek does not always understand the difference, and may make a specialized-style fallacy argument about what's the most common style in nerd circles. I learned from my RM-related keel hauling at ANI in 2014 that "people making loud but invalid arguments, and losing them repeatedly" can still constitute a "controversy" even if the applicable policy/guideline pages and the RM consensus record are crystal clear. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:18, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Sources use a horizontal line, not a diagonal line. Hyphen luddite. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:26, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I agree that this is a good change -- the slash could imply "open or closed" when the principle is not framing it that way. --Atasato (talk) 10:42, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The Typescript/JavaScript paragraph?

Why is that paragraph in the text at all? It poorly worded and formatted. If it is an example then it definitely lacks introductory "For example,". Looks like some plugged it in rather clumsily. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.210.6 (talk) 10:06, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]