由网友(缘淺)分享简介：我刚刚重构同事的code表示，大约，看上去像这样... I have just refactored a colleague's code that, roughly, looked like this...public class Utilitypublic void AddHistoryEntry(int us...

我刚刚重构同事的code表示，大约，看上去像这样...

I have just refactored a colleague's code that, roughly, looked like this...

public class Utility
  public void AddHistoryEntry(int userID, HistoryType Historytype, int companyID)
  {
    // Do something...
  }
  public void AddHistoryEntry(int userID, HistoryType historyType, int companyID, string notes)
  {
    // Do something...
  }
}

要这个......

public class HistoryEntry
{
  public long UserID { get; private set; }
  public HistoryType HistoryType { get; private set; }
  public long CompanyID { get; set; }
  public string Notes { get; set; }

  public HistoryEntry(long userID, HistoryType historyType)
  {
    this.UserID = userID;
    this.HistoryType = historyType;
  }
}

public class Utility
{
  public void AddHistoryEntry(HistoryEntry entry)
  {
    // Do something...
  }
}

}

现在，这是好多了code设计，是一个Bob大叔的最爱。然而，我的同事认为，它是如此的新，一个对象要贵得多，每次我们要调用此方法。

Now, this is much better code design and is an Uncle Bob favourite. However, my colleague argues that it is so much more expensive to new-up an object every time we want to call this method.

他是正确的吗？

新解

感谢所有的答复为止。我离开了很多细节，简洁的希望，但他们中的一些已经造成问题的答案。

Thanks for all the responses so far. I left out many details in the hope of brevity, but some of them have caused issues with the answers.

工具类不存在。我只是希望把这些方法的类，你都可以看到。实际上这是一个明智的类。 有，其实在原来的code 5 AddHistoryEntry方法。所有这一切都拍了很多INT参数。原因之一重构是 AddHistory（0，1，45，3）;！并没有真正告诉你多少 AddHistoryEntry不从一个紧密的循环调用，但它被广泛整个申请中使用。 Utility class doesn't exist. I just wanted to put the methods in a class for you all to see. In actuality it's in a sensible class. There were, in fact, 5 AddHistoryEntry methods in the original code. All of which took a lot of int parameters. One reason for the refactoring was that AddHistory(0, 1, 45, 3); doesn't really tell you much! AddHistoryEntry is not called from a tight loop, but it is widely used throughout the application.

更正

我现在已经更新了code的例子，因为我犯了一个错误的一些参数。

I've now updated the code examples as I had made a mistake with some of the parameters.

推荐答案

如果您同时拥有数以百万计这些对象在内存中，他可能是正确的。但是，如果你不这样做，那么他带给了一下，几乎肯定是一个有争议的问题。总是选择一个更好的设计，然后再修改它只是如果你不符合性能要求。

He might be correct if you have millions of these objects in memory simultaneously. But if you don't, then he's bringing up what is almost certainly a moot point. Always choose a better design first, and then modify it only if you're not meeting performance requirements.