Search:

That doesnt make any sense.
A computer screen does not do the things you defined in your program. A computer screen does not know shapes. It has pixels and each pixel has a color, there are no...

Seeing as your Screen renders shapes, perhaps it is. But I would argue that "Screen" is a bad name for it. A screen is something on which you see something. A screen is passive, you observe it, but...

It simply doesnt matter. Its an interface, any kind of class can implement it. An OpenGL renderer, an Image (that will be rendered to the screen later), anything. Its not important for the design of...

First of all, you should *really* read the *definition* of functional programming again. What you call functional programming is not the same as what I call functional programming.

Secondly, you...

You should read again what functional programming really is. What you say does not make sense.



I never said anything about that.


Where do you take all these assumptions from? You have to...

I disagree.
What you describe is not object oriented programming. You seem to have some kind of religion you are trying to defend.

As a programmer I am not an artist. I am a service provider. I...

I think you are making it more complicated then is necessary. I see no problem with having a RenderingJob that renders itself. Its just an other perspective on the same problem. There is no final...

Why not put it into an object? Thats not a good way to argue. You can always ask "why not this / why not that".
Maybe they will expand the class later on. Maybe it only has one function right now...

I wouldnt say anything is wrong with that. It might be different to what you prefer, but in the end its all just personal opinion. Sometimes its good to delegate methods to other classes because it...