Question

Most of the code in this chapter does not worry about encapsulation for two reasons. First, encapsulation takes extra effort. It makes programs bigger and requires additional concepts and interfaces to be introduced. Since there is only so much code you can throw at a reader before their eyes glaze over, I’ve made an effort to keep the program small.

Second, the various elements in this game are so closely tied together that if the behavior of one of them changed, it is unlikely that any of the others would be able to stay the same. Interfaces between the elements would end up encoding a lot of assumptions about the way the game works. This makes them a lot less effective—whenever you change one part of the system, you still have to worry about the way it impacts the other parts because their interfaces wouldn’t cover the new situation.

Some cutting points in a system lend themselves well to separation through rigorous interfaces, but others don’t. Trying to encapsulate something that isn’t a suitable boundary is a sure way to waste a lot of energy. When you are making this mistake, you’ll usually notice that your interfaces are getting awkwardly large and detailed and that they need to be modified often, as the program evolves.

There is one thing that we will encapsulate in this chapter, and that is the drawing subsystem. The reason for this is that we will display the same game in a different way in the next chapter . By putting the drawing behind an interface, we can simply load the same game program there and plug in a new display module.

This is a book about getting computers to do what you want them to do. Computers are about as common as screwdrivers today, but they contain a lot more hidden complexity and thus are harder to operate and understand. To many, they remain alien, slightly threatening things.