Allow in tests, forbid elsewhere is my vote and simple to implement.
Kind Regards,
Brandon
On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 6:46 AM Štefan Miklošovič
<smikloso...@apache.org> wrote:
against vars:
Benjamin
Stefan
Benedict
Yifan
somewhere in the middle:
Dinesh
Caleb +1 in tests and +0 in prod code.
David - against flat out banning, limiting it just for some places
Josh prod / test on/off switch.
for:
Jon
Correct me if I am wrong and I have "miscategorized" somebody.
From what I see, I think the outcome is that we might use this in tests
and let's just forbid it in prod code. My reasoning behind this is that we
might all learn how to live with this in tests and we may re-evaluate in
the future if its usage proved to be beneficial and we are comfortable to
have it in prod code as well (or we go to ban its usage in tests too). In
other words, if the majority just can't live without this in prod code we
can take a look at this again in the future.
Not banning it in tests does not mean that from now on we need to use
vars there. It just means that tests which will introduce the usage of vars
will not be rejected.
Does this sound reasonable to everybody?
On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 12:31 PM Benjamin Lerer <ble...@apache.org>
wrote:
I recently faced some var usage in the CQL layer part where it was
making the code pretty hard to understand. I am in favor of prohibiting it.
Le mar. 29 oct. 2024 à 20:32, Caleb Rackliffe <
calebrackli...@gmail.com> a écrit :
Josh's example of "good" usage seems defensible, because the declared
type is already obfuscated to Collection anyway, and my eyeballs are going
to skip to the right anyway to see the instantiated type. I'm +0 on
prohibiting it in non-test code, and -1 on prohibiting it in tests.
On Tue, Oct 29, 2024 at 2:23 PM Jon Haddad <j...@rustyrazorblade.com>
wrote:
When I first saw var as a Java keyword, my initial reaction was one
of skepticism for the reasons already mentioned. However, in practice,
I've been using var for years across many code bases (Java and Kotlin) and
have never had an issue with readability. I find it to be significantly
more pleasant to work with.
Jon
On Tue, Oct 29, 2024 at 12:13 PM Štefan Miklošovič <
smikloso...@apache.org> wrote:
I get that there might be some situations when its usage does not
pose any imminent problem but the question is how we are going to enforce
that _at scale_? What is allowed and what not ... Sure we can have a code
style for that, but its existence itself does not guarantee that everybody
will adhere to that _all the time_. People are people and make mistakes,
stuff is overlooked etc.
Upon the review we will argue whether "this particular usage of var
is meaningful or not" and "if the codestyle counts with this or not" and as
many reviews we will have there will be so many outcomes. Dozens of people
contribute to the code and more than that reads it, everybody has some
opinion about that ... Sure, just use var when you prototype etc but I
don't think it is a lot to ask to merge it without vars. Come on ...
On Tue, Oct 29, 2024 at 8:08 PM Yifan Cai <yc25c...@gmail.com>
wrote:
I am in favor of disallowing the `var` keyword.
It does not provide a good readability, especially in the
environments w/o type inference, e.g. text editor or github site.
It could introduce performance degradation without being noticed.
Consider the following code for example,
Set<String> allNames()
{
return null;
}
boolean contains(String name)
{
var names = allNames();
return names.contains(name);
}
Then, allNames is refactored to return List later. The contains
method then runs slower.
List<String> allNames()
{
return null;
}
- Yifan
On Tue, Oct 29, 2024 at 11:53 AM Josh McKenzie <
jmcken...@apache.org> wrote:
(sorry for the double-post)
Jeremy Hanna kicked this link to a style guideline re: inference
my way. Interesting read for those that are curious:
https://openjdk.org/projects/amber/guides/lvti-style-guide
On Tue, Oct 29, 2024, at 2:47 PM, Josh McKenzie wrote:
To illustrate my position from above:
Good usage:
Collection<String> names = new ArrayList<>();
becomes
var names = new ArrayList<String>();
Bad usage:
Collection<String> names = myObject.getNames();
becomes
var names = myObject.getNames();
Effectively, anything that's not clearly redundant in assignment
shouldn't use inference IMO. Thinking more deeply on this as well, I think
part of what I haven't loved is the effective splitting of type information
when constructing generics:
Map<InetAddressAndPort, RequestFailureReason>
failureReasonsbyEndpoint = new ConcurrentHashMap<>();
vs.
var failureReasonsByEndpoint = new
ConcurrentHashMap<InetAddressAndPort, RequestFailureReason>();
I strongly agree that we should optimize for readability, and I
think using type inference to the extreme of every case where it's
allowable would be the opposite of that. That said, I do believe there's
cases where judicious use of type inference make a codebase more readable
rather than less.
All that said, accommodating nuance is hard when it comes to
style guidelines. A clean simple policy of "don't use type inference
outside of testing code" is probably more likely to hold up over time for
us than having more nuanced guidelines.
On Tue, Oct 29, 2024, at 2:19 PM, Štefan Miklošovič wrote:
Yes, for now it is pretty much just in SAI. I wanted to know if
this is a thing from now on or where we are at with that ...
I am afraid that if we don't make this "right" then we will end
up with a codebase with inconsistent usage of that and it will be even
worse to navigate in it in the long term.
I would either ban its usage or allow it only in strictly
enumerated situations. However, that is just hard to check upon reviews
with 100% accuracy and I don't think there is some "checker" to check
allowed usages for us. That being said and to be on the safe side of things
I would just ban it completely.
Sometimes I am just reading the code from GitHub and it might be
also tricky to review PRs. Not absolutely every PR is reviewed in IDE, some
reviews are given without automatically checking it in IDE too and it would
just make life harder for reviewers if they had to figure out what the
types are etc ...
On Tue, Oct 29, 2024 at 7:10 PM Brandon Williams <
dri...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Oct 29, 2024 at 12:15 PM Štefan Miklošovič
<smikloso...@apache.org> wrote:
I think this is a new concept here which was introduced
recently with support of Java 11 / Java 17 after we dropped 8.
To put a finer point on that, 4.1 has 3 hits, none of which are
valid,
while 5.0 has 172. If 'sai' is added to the 5.0 grep, 85% of
them are
retained.
Kind Regards,
Brandon
