From: pasa@lib.hu   
      
   On 11/26/2012 4:50 PM, Gene Bushuyev wrote:   
      
   > Yes, a global state creates serious problems, they are well known, but   
   > the solutions, like the link above trivialize the issues involved.   
   > It's not just a matter of more verbose syntax to pass the state or   
   > part thereof to every function or class that needs it, and it's not   
   > just a matter of memory overhead storing the references, it's also (a   
   > lot) more complicated logic. If the functions and classes have to work   
   > as if there were no global state, but rather many states, they have to   
   > take into account interactions between those states, which functions   
   > working with a single global state don't need to care of.  And if at   
   > the end there is never a need for eliminating the global state then   
   > all the extra work was done in vain. OTOH, if only “dependency   
   > injection” has been done and code still assumes that all references   
   > are pointing to the same global state then those changes haven't   
   > solved a single singleton problem.   
      
   Best summary of this subthread this far.   
      
   I'd really be glad if DI proponents would react something as possibly I   
   mislooked some point in the tech.   
      
      
   --   
         [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]   
         [ comp.lang.c++.moderated.    First time posters: Do this! ]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)