This difference becomes most important when there are several independent ways of extending functionality. In some object-oriented programming languages, classes cannot be created at runtime, and it is typically not possible to predict, at design time, what combinations of extensions will be needed. This would mean that a new class would have to be made for every possible combination. By contrast, decorators are objects, created at runtime, and can be combined on a per-use basis. The I/O Streams implementations of both Java and the .NET Framework incorporate the decorator pattern.
In this snippet we have a class hierarchy with a SimpleMessage at the top. The SimpleMessage class has a constructor that accepts a content string as well as two methods: GetMessage; and, PrintMessage. Down the hierarchy we have three subclasses: ExcitedMessage; QuizzicalMessage; and, ExcitedAndQuizzicalMessage. The only difference in the subclasses is that they override the SimpleMessage constructor to change the content string and append various exclamations. When we instantiate various message objects, using the same content string, and iterate over them, each has their own unique output.
Aesthetics is the study of art and beauty; it was an important issue for 18th- and 19th-century philosophers such as Kant and Hegel. Classical philosophers like Plato and Aristotle also theorized about art and painting in particular. Plato disregarded painters (as well as sculptors) in his philosophical system; he maintained that painting cannot depict the truth—it is a copy of reality (a shadow of the world of ideas) and is nothing but a craft, similar to shoemaking or iron casting.[9] By the time of Leonardo, painting had become a closer representation of the truth than painting was in Ancient Greece. Leonardo da Vinci, on the contrary, said that "Italian: La Pittura è cosa mentale" ("English: painting is a thing of the mind").[10] Kant distinguished between Beauty and the Sublime, in terms that clearly gave priority to the former.[citation needed] Although he did not refer to painting in particular, this concept was taken up by painters such as J.M.W. Turner and Caspar David Friedrich.
Struggled to decide if this was a romance novel gone wrong, a story of a struggling artist, a chronicle on how & where to fish or a satirical farce. If it was any of these, did not work for me. 1/4 of the book is a primer on fishing, the rest bounces off the walls, trying to hit something, failing. What a romp through the absurd this novel is. Much time spent in cold creeks with nasty lures and mucky wading boots. The author kind of made the painter into a weeble wobble, he kept being punched at yet came back for more and more . The plots kind of remind me of a tv show I watched a few times. "Justified", a show about bubba dudes and dudesses in Harlen County Kentucky, the characters are portrayed as intelligent dummies, much like this novel. The Painter offers shallow, silly women, dare I say "bimbo's". The "painter" himself is a hapless "psychopath" who romps through life with no self check ability. He supposedly never means any of the harm he manages to encounter, just happens, right. Not to ruin a plot twist/surprise, but at one point a bullet is fired into the night, from a hand gun, with no light, landing hundreds of yards away and claiming it's prey. Haha, right, "I shot an arrow in the sky". It's a quick read, especially when you can Evelyn Woods it through all the tedious fishing. Yes, I know, the fishing, and the painting, were meant to be symbolic, but, it is only symbolic if the reader cares, and, this one did not !
Categories: English 2-syllable wordsEnglish terms with IPA pronunciationEnglish terms with audio linksEnglish words suffixed with -er (agent noun)English terms derived from Middle FrenchEnglish lemmasEnglish nounsEnglish countable nounsEnglish terms with obsolete sensesen:NauticalAmerican EnglishEnglish agent nounsEnglish terms with multiple etymologiesen:Artistsen:People