On 26 October 2010 00:00, Liam Knox <[email protected]> wrote: > But equally I could say @Tx, Does this make the code any more or less > understandable than @Transactional ? > Perhaps I could have a transactional keyword... > How can something like 'number of characters' or '30%' make real sense when > its comes to something as subjective. > > > @Tx is valid, I see no reason why it should be misunderstood in the right context.
> On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 7:54 AM, Mark Volkmann > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> 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]<javaposse%[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]<javaposse%[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]<javaposse%[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]<javaposse%[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]<javaposse%[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]<javaposse%[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.
