C++ Strategy Design Pattern - Part 1 of 2 - Changing Algorithmic Behavior

No video

C++ Strategy Design Pattern - Part 1 of 2 - Changing Algorithmic Behavior

Рет қаралды 1,632

Mike Shah

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 18

@nrnjn8547 5 ай бұрын

Hell yee, I was waiting for this. I'm using your videos along with the gang of 4 book, to understand design patterns

@MikeShah 5 ай бұрын

Awesome!

@danielabouelezz6448 5 ай бұрын

Love your explanation, although I am still a beginner but i found it interesting to watch the whole video. I am very good with data structures now, so do you think I should be learning design pattern or what is my next step.

@MikeShah 5 ай бұрын

Yes, next step is to give it a try to implement based on the explanation. Next video will also provide a walkthrough. Otherwise, next steps are to also consider a project (e.g. a small game) to put everything together.

@AlanMardi 5 ай бұрын

Thanks for great topic! Looking forward to part 2. I have a question: why do double check { threshold >= 16, threshold >= 64 ... } in each "else if" though they already excluded in preceding if's?

@MikeShah 5 ай бұрын

Would want the conditional to be true if threshold is between a value 🙂

@AlanMardi 5 ай бұрын

@@MikeShah hmm, I'm a bit confused :) I mean what is the pofit of: if (thr < 16) do_A() else if (thr >= 16 && thr < 64) // ? thr >= 16 do_B(); comparing to: if (thr < 16) do_A() else if (thr < 64) // no chance to call do_B() with (thr < 16) anyway, program will never even try to check it do_B(); I would even more likely add lower limit to check the 1st "if" entry: if (thr >=0 && thr < 16) ... but not sure why to do this for following "else if"s :)

@MikeShah 5 ай бұрын

Ah yes, you are right that would be the equivalent, and perhaps even save some cycles. I was being a bit too explicit I suppose :)@@AlanMardi

@AlanMardi 5 ай бұрын

@@MikeShah I see :) Really love explicit syntax, though this one is too dangerous for me as requires to change pairs of numbers to tweak thresholds. At some point I will definately miss it and change just one number, so code will compile and pass most unit tests, but still work not as expected :)