I'm guessing you prefer the second case with the annotation. I believe Kevin would too since it has fewer tokens. I agree that using the annotation makes the meaning more clear.
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 5:41 PM, Liam Knox <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes fantastic metric characters are in measuring bolierplate > i.e > foo() { > t.s(); > t.c(); > } > > or > @Transactional > foo(){} > > On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 10:31 PM, Kevin Wright <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> No, because that's based on an assumption that more lines = more >> functionality >> Though I can see how those in favour of not removing boilerplate, and >> questioning the benefits of a 30% reduction might see this as a good metric >> >> On 25 October 2010 14:28, Liam Knox <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Should we go back to measuring productivity by lines of code written? >>> >>> On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 10:26 PM, Augusto Sellhorn >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> This is really bizarre, I've heard people say that fewer lines of code >>>> is desirable, but this is the first time I hear somebody say that X% >>>> fewer characters lead almost exactly to X% reduction in complexity! >>>> >>>> --------------- >>>> >>>> for(int >>>> indexOfAuthorInCurrentIteration=0; >>>> indexOfAuthorInCurrentIteration<=authorsFromNameQuery.length; >>>> ++indexOfAuthorInCurrentIteration) { >>>> Author currentAuthorBeingIteratedOver >>>> = authorsFromNameQuery[indexOfAuthorInCurrentIteration] >>>> // do something with the author >>>> } >>>> >>>> --------------- >>>> >>>> Nobody is saying you have to use super long names here, what you are >>>> saying is that less characters more % reduction in complexity, which >>>> leads to this >>>> >>>> for (int i=0; i <= aq.length; ++i) { >>>> Author aa = aq[i]; >>>> // do something with the author >>>> } >>>> >>>> Which I don't think results in any % less chances of bugs, as a matter >>>> of fact it ends up being less readable than some reasonable and clear >>>> names that could have been applied. >>>> >>>> I hope in your code reviews you are not doing character counts and >>>> blasting developers on these bogus measurements. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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. >> >> >> >> -- >> 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. > > -- > 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. > -- R. Mark Volkmann Object Computing, Inc. -- 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.
