I think you're right, but I saw one guy here at work writing something like
this for readability he said!
if (value != null) {
;
} else if (value == null) {
;
}
> From: Paul Andrews <[email protected]>
> Reply-To: Flash Coders List <[email protected]>
> Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 22:17:05 +0100
> To: Flash Coders List <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] How to add a DisplayObject into a container without
> using addChild() method.
>
> Dave Watts wrote:
>> snip
>> It really depends on the language. Since I'm moving (more or less)
>> from Java to AS3, more or less, I'm usually using explicit expressions
>> because that's what people do in Java. On the other hand, in the
>> ColdFusion code I've written, I usually use implicit Boolean
>> evaluation.
>>
> I don't think writing "good" code is related to languages, despite the
> different constructs available between them. I think good coding style
> is based on simple principles, and brevity or speed of coding is not
> included.
>
> Short coding constructs may be perceived as elegant and aid coding
> speed, but that wholly misses the point - coding isn't a race nor is
> optimising the number of bytes in the source code. Showing a deep
> knowledge of a software language through use of the language in ways
> that are not so clear to mere mortals less familiar with the language,
> isn't good. It is rarely a good idea to optimise code by using a faster
> programming construct that makes the intention of the code less clear.
>
> Good coding should be clear - even for those less familiar with the
> language. Truncated coding constructs may be efficient and even elegant,
> but will they be easily understandable by someone else (or even the same
> person much later)? Code minimalism can hide the true intention of the
> code and introduce unintended behaviour when mistakes are made. When
> code is expansive (verbose even) the intention of the code is clear.
> When someone relies on some language behaviour for handling null values,
> the reader may be left wondering whether the original developer really
> intended that the code should handle nulls in this way, or is it some
> accidental happenstance of using that construct? Are nulls really
> relevant here in this code snippet or not. Testing specifically for
> nulls is explicit and unambiguous.
>
> Maintainability - truncated constructs can sometimes mean that changes
> for updates mean undoing the "efficient" constructs that performed well
> for specific case they were coded for, but will have to be ditched
> completely for the more complicated case, leaving the updater to unwind
> the intention of the shorter construct and translate that to the wider case.
>
> As far as "fast" coding goes, everybody likes a helpful ide or editor,
> but really fast coders really aren't team coders and the "need for
> speed" is less important than the need for clarity. I'm not a fast
> coder. Sometimes I wish I was an even slower coder, because then I'd
> realise I could code things rather better than going rushing in to get
> things done.
>
> I once worked with a guy who had a clear desk and often sat reading the
> newspaper. It did attract some critical comment, but that guy had the
> right idea. Before he started coding he spent a lot of time on the
> design, getting that right. A faster code editor or fancy programming
> wouldn't have made him a better developer. He spent most of his time
> getting it right before his hands hit the keyboard. He was the best
> developer I ever met.
>
> So, in my insignificant opinion - brevity == BAD, fast coding ==BAD.
>
> Paul
>
>> Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
>> http://www.figleaf.com/
>>
>> Fig Leaf Software provides the highest caliber vendor-authorized
>> instruction at our training centers in Washington DC, Atlanta,
>> Chicago, Baltimore, Northern Virginia, or on-site at your location.
>> Visit http://training.figleaf.com/ for more information!
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Flashcoders mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Flashcoders mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
This e-mail is intended only for the named person or entity to which it is
addressed and contains valuable
business information that is proprietary, privileged, confidential and/or
otherwise protected from disclosure.
If you received this e-mail in error, any review, use, dissemination,
distribution or copying of this e-mail
is strictly prohibited. Please notify us immediately of the error via e-mail to
[email protected] and
please delete the e-mail from your system, retaining no copies in any media. We
appreciate your cooperation.
_______________________________________________
Flashcoders mailing list
[email protected]
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
