20 lines
1.4 KiB
Text
20 lines
1.4 KiB
Text
|
/*
|
||
|
|
* JUSTIFICATION FOR NOT HAVING SEPERATE CLASSES FOR PLANETS AND MOONS
|
||
|
|
*
|
||
|
|
* I did originally have that, but once I implemented the ability to switch the focused planet
|
||
|
|
* (press the numbers keys), differentiating between 'planet' and 'moon' became meaningless as
|
||
|
|
* any given point was either the centre point (as represented by the `CentrePoint` class) or a
|
||
|
|
* satellite of it. The only difference between a planet-type and moon-type satellite was whether
|
||
|
|
* they orbited the centre point in the Sol view, or another satellite. As such, having separate
|
||
|
|
* classes for them seemed incorrect, so I went for overloaded constructors instead. It would be
|
||
|
|
* easy enough to return to `Planet` and `Moon` classes that extend `Satellite` with their seperate
|
||
|
|
* constructors, however. As per polymorphism any instance of a `Satellite` object being expected
|
||
|
|
* in `Solar` could take a `Planet` or `Moon` object as its argument and be fine, so `Solar` might
|
||
|
|
* not even have to be changed at all.
|
||
|
|
*
|
||
|
|
* However, I've included an alternate version with Moon and Planet classes that is fully functional,
|
||
|
|
* to demonstrate my understanding of inheritance and polymorphism. As this was completed after the
|
||
|
|
* review, I've marked it as such and included the original version with the overloaded constructors
|
||
|
|
* that was marked.[NOTE: This alternate version has not been included here]
|
||
|
|
*/
|