Using static class members to instantiate an object of itself, within itself, without creating a stack-overflow? - page 2

 

Your code is full of nuances which are sitting just inside your head. Good code is easy to read and easy to support for many people except you.

Despite the fact the code is "small", it's so intensively littered with pitfalls that it needs large work for refactoring. Sorry, I'm not interested to do it. Most things I do I do because I like them, not for money.

What you're asking for is codereview. There are places in the net dedicated for this routine, which could be probably more helpful for you if you code in general purpose language such as C++. You can port your code to C++ and get wider audience and response. In any way you should be prepared that your code can be criticized. I understand you want to get some specifics, but let it be someone else, I see strageness on almost every line, so the story would become a very long one and somewhat useless. If it can make your life easier, just ignore my opinion.


 
Stanislav Korotky:

Your code is full of nuances which are sitting just inside your head. Good code is easy to read and easy to support for many people except you.

Despite the fact the code is "small", it's so intensively littered with pitfalls that it needs large work for refactoring. Sorry, I'm not interested to do it. Most things I do I do because I like them, not for money.

What you're asking for is codereview. There are places in the net dedicated for this routine, which could be probably more helpful for you if you code in general purpose language such as C++. You can port your code to C++ and get wider audience and response. In any way you should be prepared that your code can be criticized. I understand you want to get some specifics, but let it be someone else, I see strageness on almost every line, so the story would become a very long one and somewhat useless. If it can make your life easier, just ignore my opinion.


Ok so this really is just coming down to a personal preference of yours. I get it. Still though, there's no reason to call someone's work dangerous because you don't understand it.
 
nicholishen:
Ok so this really is just coming down to a personal preference of yours. I get it. Still though, there's no reason to call someone's work dangerous because you don't understand it.

I do understand. ;-) My personal preferences based on common programming practises, which you violate.

Reason: