The singleton design pattern in D, C++ and Java

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

Mike James wrote:
> "Andrei Alexandrescu" <SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote in message 
> news:i39d0s$2596$1 at digitalmars.com...
>> Bruno Medeiros wrote:
>>> On 16/07/2010 18:18, Ali Çehreli wrote:
>>>> Justin Johansson wrote:
>>>>> Which language out of C++, D and Java does this classical
>>>>> "GoF" (gang-of-four***) design pattern best?
>>>>
>>>> Are we still talking singleton? I thought that it is considered an
>>>> anti-pattern already. :)
>>>>
>>>
>>> First time I've heard this as well. I searched the web, and woah, 
>>> there does seem to be quite a few people who think the same, but 
>>> frankly, upon reading their arguments against singleton (in the sense 
>>> that singleton should not be used), most of them don't add up. In 
>>> fact some of those arguments are quite idiotic, a lot of people are 
>>> totally misunderstanding singleton.
>>> (im not going to botter arguing why, and I hope people here don't 
>>> think singleton is inherently bad)
>>> Cause man, I haven't seen such idiocy since when I joined a new 
>>> company and found the then lead developer enforced a policy in our 
>>> Java codebase of single return statements. Because multiple return 
>>> statements were very bad and should *only* be used if performance 
>>> necessitated that. Lolz. Talk about software engineering best 
>>> practices from the 60's.
>>
>> OUCHHHHHHHH...
>>
>> Andrei
> 
> Having a single point of exit from a function is still a design practice 
> in the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) C++ Coding Standard (Rule 113) and is 
> a requirement in MISRA C++:2008 (Rule 6-6-5) and MISRA C:2004 (Rule 
> 14.4) and also a requirement to writing software under IEC61508 (Part 3, 
> Table B.9). So its still an engineering best practice in the 10's :-)

I know! And that doesn't help either!

With exceptions, SESE effectively becomes a dangerous illusion.


Andrei