The Big Programming Thread - Page 481

On May 18 2014 00:10 BungaBunga wrote:
Are there any iOS developers around here?

On May 18 2014 19:03 BungaBunga wrote:
Here is my question:
I've put a lot of effort into making an Android app. The app is doing ok and I can currently live off it.
Now the question is if it makes sense to repeat the same thing for iOS.

I cannot afford hiring another developer or designer.
So I would basically have to do it all by myself.
It would probably take me about 2 years to get the iOS app done.

Here are the things that concern me:
- I would need to buy all the Apple stuff (laptop, iPhone, tablet)
- I'm not a designer myself. Even though the app looks ok for Android, I know that the bar for iOS is a lot higher.
- On Android it is relatively easy to get steady downloads with good SEO. On iOS I've heard that you need to spend loads of money on marketing just to be visible. I'm wondering if anyone has some experience with that.

On May 18 2014 22:58 Morfildur wrote:


You don't.

Private: Only visible to the current class.
Protected: Visible to the current class and any classes inheriting this class.
Public: Visible to everyone.

What you want is a protected method, not a private one.

func(args)
{
    print(args.length);
    print(args[1]);
}

> func blahblah
undefined
blahblah

On May 18 2014 23:04 Manit0u wrote:


That much I knew, thought that maybe there's some hacks you could use that I didn't know of. The thing is, I have a big private function in one class in the big framework. I need to alter this function ever so slightly without having to rewrite a ton of stuff (the class containing the private function has lots of children). Simply changing it to protected won't work since I don't know if any of its children won't override it then. It's a poor design by the creator of this thing...

Anyway, another question, this time about JS (of which I don't know much so I'll write it more in pseudo-code than anything):

func(args)
{
    print(args.length);
    print(args[1]);
}

Input/Output:

> func blahblah
undefined
blahblah

Any idea why it doesn't return the .length property? I know that it would be true in the past for array-like objects but I hear it isn't the case now... I'm confused.

var obj = {};
obj[1] = 'test';

On May 18 2014 23:39 berated- wrote:


what type would you say blahblah is?

Your example isn't 100% clear to me, but hopefully some of this helps? If you are actually passing in an argument like args, then its possible in your example that args could be an object, not an array.

var obj = {};
obj[1] = 'test';

Above would be an example where you obj[1] would return a value but length would not be known.

If you are actually trying to access the arguments of a function, then, the keyword is arguments and it isn't passed into the function, its just kind of there.

Example of arguments

On May 19 2014 04:24 phar wrote:
On the comments on reflection above:

Manit0u - the direct answer to your question is yes, you can do it. Spine is in the right direction with reflection, here is an example in Java: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/14398157/how-to-invoke-parent-private-method-from-child

Morfildur is in the more correct direction though - even though it's possible, you really should not do this except under some very rare circumstances.

You might need it in a very specific unit test to ensure the exact behavior of some type of configuration - but even then you should exhaust all other possibilities of designing your code in a way that doesn't force you to use reflection on private methods.

On May 18 2014 22:58 Morfildur wrote:


You don't.

Private: Only visible to the current class.
Protected: Visible to the current class and any classes inheriting this class.
Public: Visible to everyone.

What you want is a protected method, not a private one.