On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 5:42 AM, Wildam Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
> 1. In your Scala sample I don't see what that type of items list > contains or should contain. > 2. Your example is a typical simple sample you would give when > learning or teaching Scala. In realtime there would be more in the > brackets part and hence make it less readable. > In "realtime" the examples don't look much worse, honestly. If you start getting a bit hairy in there, then you typically replace any complicated expressions with a function call. Handy, since they can be passed around so easily. :) > 3. I only have to type "newo<tab>" and "fore<tab>" in NetBeans to get > the java "boilerplate". So I not really have to type much to get the > "verbosity" which I consider as information rather than boilerplate. > This is an argument I loathe now. Now what do you have to do when you want to refactor any of the code that was required, but auto generated for you by the IDE? I suppose if you are lucky than the IDE will have the correct refactoring tool you want. Otherwise, you now have a ton of surgical procedures to do on your code. > 4. If I need such things more often I would write a function like this: > I snipped it, but it is telling that your "one liner" takes a full static method that is far from abstract. Can you make the same method that would work no matter what type of Number was passed in and preserved those types? > > I want to create software that more closely matches how I'm thinking > about > > that software. That's a benefit, it makes it easier to write and, > crucially, > > much easier to read. > > This is just your opinion. Other people think different and don't > share your opinion about readability. > Did you see the linked paper by Martin? If there are obvious holes in the study, I'm interested. > > > Developers who come after me will be able to read what I *meant*, not > what I > > was forced to write so that I might satisfy the compiler. > > ROTFL! Why do you think that laws are written in so awful long texts? > Because leaving too much room for *interpretation* mostly does not > bring the intended result. It is already hard to read somebody else's > code (that is why many people rather do a rewrite of a code instead of > fixing the old code) - if you expect me to understand what you > "meant", I just say: Be clear in what you code. This includes that you > specify the intended content of your list for example. > While I typically say that anyone wanting to write laws must go through several role playing sessions to see how their own friends will twist their language, you do realize that there is a huge difference in the context free languages of programming, right? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
