coupling definition?

What's a good definition for coupling? I see that term used alot.

crichmon

"crichmon" <crichmon23@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:nkOKc.4188$f4.1886@newsread3.news.atl.earthli nk.net...[color=blue]
> What's a good definition for coupling?[/color]

http://tinyurl.com/57xum
[color=blue]
> I see that term used alot.[/color]

http://tinyurl.com/5g4rc


Now what is your question about C++?

-Mike

Mike Wahler <mkwahler@mkwahler.net> wrote in message
news:pAQKc.7199$mL5.650@newsread1.news.pas.earthli nk.net...[color=blue]
> "crichmon" <crichmon23@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:nkOKc.4188$f4.1886@newsread3.news.atl.earthli nk.net...[color=green]
> > What's a good definition for coupling?[/color]
>
> http://tinyurl.com/57xum
>[color=green]
> > I see that term used alot.[/color]
>
> http://tinyurl.com/5g4rc
>
>
> Now what is your question about C++?[/color]

Please don't pollute the newsgroup with childish crap such as those two
links. The word has a meaning in the general field covered here. If your
post is an attempt at humor it is a pathetic attempt indeed.

To the OP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Couplin...er_programming

Osmium

osmium wrote:
[color=blue]
> Mike Wahler <mkwahler@mkwahler.net> wrote in message
> news:pAQKc.7199$mL5.650@newsread1.news.pas.earthli nk.net...[color=green]
>> "crichmon" <crichmon23@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:nkOKc.4188$f4.1886@newsread3.news.atl.earthli nk.net...[color=darkred]
>> > What's a good definition for coupling?[/color]
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/57xum
>>[color=darkred]
>> > I see that term used alot.[/color]
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/5g4rc
>>
>>
>> Now what is your question about C++?[/color]
>
> Please don't pollute the newsgroup with childish crap such as those
> two links. The word has a meaning in the general field covered here.[/color]

The "general fiel covered here" (I'd call it "topic") is C++ as defined
by ISO-14882, which doesn't define the term "coupling".
But you should stop talking about "childish crap" as long as you think
it's l33t or whatever to post using a pseudonym.

crichmon wrote:
[color=blue]
> What's a good definition for coupling? I see that term used alot.
>
> crichmon[/color]

I note that a link to a definition has already been posted (by 'osmium').

Here is what Bjarne Stroustrup has to say about coupling in "The Design and
Evolution of C++":-

QUOTE
By decreasing the coupling between a user and an implementer, abstract
classes provide an answer to people complaining about long compile times
and also serve library providers, who must worry about the impact on users
of changes to a library implementation.
UNQUOTE

Stroustrup also covers this topic in "The C++ Programming Language - 3rd
Edition", section 25.3.

I think I have also seen it mentioned in one of Scott Meyers' books.

To anyone who thinks that discussion of coupling is off topic for this
newsgroup, I would say that if one accepts the FAQ as authoritative on what
is / is not on topic, and interprets its wording strictly, then perhaps you
are right. However, my view is that such topics should be of interest to
anyone who wants to use C+ seriously, and I think it would be a pity to
exclude discussion.

--
Chris Gordon-Smith
London
Homepage: http://graffiti.virgin.net/c.gordon-smith/
Email Address: Please see my Home Page

Chris Gordon-Smith wrote:
[color=blue]
> Here is what Bjarne Stroustrup has to say about coupling in "The Design[/color]
and[color=blue]
> Evolution of C++":-
>
> QUOTE
> By decreasing the coupling between a user and an implementer, abstract
> classes provide an answer to people complaining about long compile times
> and also serve library providers, who must worry about the impact on users
> of changes to a library implementation.
> UNQUOTE[/color]

Look up the "Dependency Inversion Principle".

C++ enables very large scale applications by matching logical decoupling
(interface-oriented programming) with physical decoupling (forward class
declarations, pure virtual functions, bald references & pointers, etc.).
[color=blue]
> To anyone who thinks that discussion of coupling is off topic for this
> newsgroup, I would say that if one accepts the FAQ as authoritative on[/color]
what[color=blue]
> is / is not on topic, and interprets its wording strictly, then perhaps[/color]
you[color=blue]
> are right. However, my view is that such topics should be of interest to
> anyone who wants to use C+ seriously, and I think it would be a pity to
> exclude discussion.[/color]

Screeching about topicality is often an excuse for "I can't think of a C++
angle for your post."

--
Phlip
http://industrialxp.org/community/bi...UserInterfaces