Talk:God object
Add topicLatest comment: 18 years ago by Ivan Pozdeev in topic Discussion point
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
Not Enough to Wikify?
[edit]This article has a "Please wikify" template on it, but I don't see that there's enough to wikify here. The article is a stub; it doesn't naturally break down into any sub-sections, and no illustration ideas spring easily to mind. The only thing I can think of to add is perhaps a "See also" section, but it would simply point to anti-patterns and maybe object-oriented programming... both of which are already linked in the first paragraph.
How would we wikify this article?
Not Enough to Wikify?
[edit]Nice artical. There should be a reference to the big ball of mud: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_ball_of_mud, because that's really what the God Object is
- Big ball of mud is a much broader term than God object. The former refers to a system, the latter to a specific object or class. It is entirely possibly to have a BBoM that makes use of no God objects. Granted, there are some definate similarities, but personally I'm indifferent to mentioning it in this article. -19:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verdatum (talk • contribs)
Discussion point
[edit]Is a monolithic Kernel a God Object? If so, is that a bad thing?1Z 18:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- A good kernel is not monolitic, but is combined from subsystems and auxiliary libraries. Also, a good kernel does not give orders — it only receives and executes them (such a problem was avoided in linux kernel by migrating from initrd to initramfs ). So yes, an opaque kernel with obscure structure is a God Object and is a bad thing. — Vano 20:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)