While it may be possible in Java as it was in old languages like C to write an entire program on one line, it is more readable to break it out. I agree there shouldn't be an arbitrary limit such as no line longer than 100 or 80 or 200 characters. Sometimes it may make sense to string more than that together. It should be at the discretion of the programmer to limit line lengths for readability, to make it easier for debugging and modifying later. Unreasonably long lines should be broken down where possible. If the line gets long because you have a parameter to a method which is the result of another method, you could create an object of that parameter type using that method on the line above and pass the object instead to shorten it. It may take an extra nanosecond to execute, or add a tiny bit of disk or memory space use, but if we were really that concerned we'd still be writing code using A and B as variable names..
________________________________ From: Glenn Adams [mailto:gl...@skynav.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 10:48 AM To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: [Bug 49733] [PATCH] resolve compilation, checkstyle, javadoc warnings On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 9:09 PM, Jeremias Maerki <d...@jeremias-maerki.ch> wrote: fine-tuning CheckStyle is probably a good thing. oh, i completely agree on that, and i'm sure we will find that opportunity as time permits, and when it does, i will happily contribute a number of comments for consideration; but that conversation is precisely what i wish to avoid at this juncture, since it will undoubtedly prove to be quite subjective; for example, how long should a line of code be permitted to be? the currently written FOP checkstyle rule is 100 characters, but why not 80 or 132? my own coding style is to use a single line for an expression regardless its length: the fact that my editor (emacs) happens to wrap at 200 characters is merely a property of my favorite font, screen resolution, window size, and wrap configuration; did I follow the rule in my new complex script code? no, i used my favorite style and disabled this warning; but i didn't make the decision randomly, and i didn't want to leave a visible warning during style checking; the CS keywords remain in the code, and can be used to evaluate or audit how far real practice diverges from an artificially prescribed practice (the encoded rules); what is my reasoning? artificial line breaks make code harder to read and understand, or at least that is my considered conclusion having read and written much code (though I would make an exception for APL - short lines are definitely better there); on the other hand, while fixing the current code, there were occasions where reported style violations marked possible coding errors; for example, the lack of a default clause in a switch statement was something i encountered a few dozen times in this cleanup work; in some of the cases, it was not a semantic error, but in others it was a semantic error waiting for a bug report; although I did not address findbugs errors in this pass, there are a few errors that it detects that can easily lead to semantic errors, such as copying or returning references to live arrays (as opposed to performing deep copies); in some cases, it is desirable, for performance reasons, to return a reference to a live array typed member of an object; however, in other cases, it is an invitation to unintentional side effects leading to dynamic errors; in these cases, a contributor or committer has to make a decision based on a deeper knowledge of code function and usage, and not merely upon the surface form; i saved the task of fixing findbugs errors (and PMD errors) until the low hanging fruit has been picked, namely the subject of the current patch; having plucked the easy ones, i'll continue to the more tricky ones, but that will have to wait until the current patch is in the trunk and no regressions appear; g.