My guess is the original poster also meant 'all else being equal', not 'if I remove levels of abstraction'.
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 1:05 PM, Liam Knox <[email protected]> wrote: > But there is so much more to all of this than something a banal as > attributing it to numbers of characters. For example levels of abstraction > within a method, naming, method size etc, etc, etc. I just can't understand > why people simply bound around these pointless conjectures and random > percentages figures. > > On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 8:37 PM, Ricky Clarkson <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> Fewer lines, all else being equal, will on average lead to fewer bugs. >> Programming is largely about reading, and the larger the code the >> harder it is to spot a logic error. I'm not advocating Perl-like >> obfuscation ($_ anyone?), removing identifiers that have meaning, but >> instead advocating removal of boilerplate, and identifiers that have >> no meaning. >> >> In a related topic, sometimes I find myself shortening code so that I >> can see the bugs more clearly. I find it very effective. >> >> On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 12:28 PM, Miroslav Pokorny >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 7:04 PM, Kevin Wright <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> No, I never stated that, because I don't believe it. >> >> Using higher-level concepts with fewer *tokens* will reduce the number >> >> of >> >> bugs. It just so happens that few tokens usually result in shorter >> >> code. >> > >> > Thats not what you said, you made a generalised sweeping statement that >> > can >> > only be wrong because nothing in software is ever that simple. >> > >> >> >> >> I don't even consider comments when thinking about how long code is, >> >> because comments aren't code. >> >> Using shorter identifiers *may* reduce the risk of bugs if they're >> >> otherwise so long that they obscure the essential complexity of an >> >> algorithm. Seriously, would you write something like this? >> >> for(int >> >> >> >> indexOfAuthorInCurrentIteration=0; indexOfAuthorInCurrentIteration<=authorsFromNameQuery.length; >> >> ++indexOfAuthorInCurrentIteration) { >> >> Author currentAuthorBeingIteratedOver >> >> = authorsFromNameQuery[indexOfAuthorInCurrentIteration] >> >> // do something with the author >> >> } >> >> Do you NOT believe that shorter names would make the example clearer? >> >> >> >> On 25 October 2010 02:38, Miroslav Pokorny <[email protected]> >> >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> @Kevin >> >>> >> >>> I guess refactoring code so all identifiers are really short single >> >>> characters ( a human powered obfuscator) means i just made my code >> >>> have less >> >>> bugs..right ? >> >>> >> >>> If my class names are shorter and thus my source files have less >> >>> characters does that mean my code has less bugs ? >> >>> >> >>> if my code has no comments does that mean it has less bugs ? >> >>> >> >>> -- >> >>> 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. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Kevin Wright >> >> >> >> mail / gtalk / msn : [email protected] >> >> pulse / skype: kev.lee.wright >> >> twitter: @thecoda >> >> >> >> -- >> >> 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. >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > mP >> > >> > -- >> > 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. >> > >> >> -- >> 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. >> > > -- > 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. > -- 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.
