I use the definition I do because it is practically applicable, and not arbitrarily retarded from applying to certain fundamentally useful cases for the sake of theoretical argument on effectively the morality of using them or not.
I reject your definition because it is based on an unknown combination of an unknown number of unqualified opinions.
Further, if that were not the case, I still reject your definition because it arbitrarily retards the topic from progress in some specific cases which you frequently voice.
Lets go a step further.
Lets use the actual definition of the word "singleton" outside computer programming.
> a single person or thing of the kind under consideration.
A static class is objectively a singleton, because there is only a single static context of any given class. Q.E.D.
okay, so you've finally admitted "There is no such thing.", and you have a reason for your definition. it's a good reason too. finally some progress. however, the problem still remains: when you use the word singleton, everyone assumes the same definition that I do, and they misunderstand what you're saying.
when someone comes into this room and asks "should I use a singleton" they're not asking "should I limit this class to one instance", they're asking "is there a better way to limit this class to one instance than the pattern with GetInstance()"
@MickLH except Adrian does...or did. he got the wrong advice from you because you expect people to infer an unusual definition for a word when there are no indicators to infer that definition from.
LOL yes, because when I put "morons" in quotes specifically to mock that word, implying that he's not a moron and you are being insulting, that means I'm calling him a moron
sure, assuming your definition is the right one, which you've already admitted doesn't exist. but even assuming that, you're the one who said that lack of understanding makes him a moron.
you are the first and only person to call anyone a moron, Mick. my entire point, which you partially agreed to earlier, is that any definition is valid and for the sake of mutual understanding we should use the popular one. your point is that one definition is right, or at least more right, and when referring to people who don't "understand" that, you said "Fuck what morons think"
your lack of self awareness right now is astounding
right, because calling someone a moron and then going "I didn't say that, you said that" is so patient. the person putting up with that shit without getting himself suspended again isn't patient at all.
I want to be absolutely clear: The popular definition of a word is irrelevant in the context of computer science. Any notion which insists that the popular definition is the correct one is ill-formed to the extend that you should literally expect an edible (probably chocolate chip) cookie to be delivered to you physically every time you use a website with cookies.
"my entire point, which you partially agreed to earlier, is that any definition is valid" "Any notion which insists that the popular definition is the correct one is ill-formed" LOL
the popular definition of a word becomes relevant when talking to literally anyone, if you want to be understood. if you don't want to be understood, and instead just want to be "technically right" by some mostly arbitrary metric, then expect people to - at the very least - try to translate your ramblings so the noobs can at least get some worthy information.
I will re-state the original thesis as I exit, for the sake of any confused reader: The singleton pattern is not limited only to "GetInstance()" methods.
This is infallibly correct assuming 2016 english dictionary definitions. Good day, I have to go.