Why are females typed differently than males instead of a base class human with a gender identity parameter? Why would human anything have a function called young?? What would that function even do???
HumanFemales and HumanM both inherit from the Ape base class, it’s from an older java code base. We tried to change it once but it turned out the person that had written had retired and any changes we made just broke stuff.
I can accept your second point, but in your PR I would absolutely request you to rename the method to isYoung, and then in making said comment I would then ask… what value isYoung providing, and where is the line between young and !young ultimately for trying to get the dev to reevaluate the design. It’s hyper specific in an obtuse manner and I think it hints at design flaws especially with the perspective of product evolution
Why are females typed differently than males instead of a base class human with a gender identity parameter? Why would human anything have a function called young?? What would that function even do???
HumanFemales and HumanM both inherit from the Ape base class, it’s from an older java code base. We tried to change it once but it turned out the person that had written had retired and any changes we made just broke stuff.
Haha, I like this answer!
Could be a subclass. However, it should just be an ‘is’ method which is passed the array of [young, pretty] as input
The young method returns a boolean parameter. Females have a different type for obvious biological discrepancies that require extra functionality.
I can accept your second point, but in your PR I would absolutely request you to rename the method to
isYoung, and then in making said comment I would then ask… what value isYoung providing, and where is the line between young and !young ultimately for trying to get the dev to reevaluate the design. It’s hyper specific in an obtuse manner and I think it hints at design flaws especially with the perspective of product evolution