Moved here to not distract from original thread's conversation.
>> On Mar 28, 2012, at 3:31 PM, Farrukh Ijaz wrote:
>>
>>>> return contentDisposition != null && (contentDisposition.indexOf("inline")
>>>> > -1 || contentDisposition.indexOf("attachment") > -1);
>>>>
>>>> Seriously, who can read that and make sense of it immediately?!
>>>
>>> This is programmers shorthand. They master it with time. If you find these
>>> statements somewhere in the code, consider that piece of code been written
>>> by an experienced programmer which is less likely to have bugs. This is
>>> style is still not difficult than what you can find in a TopCoder algorithm
>>> which contains is full of boolean and bit manipulation operators.
>>
>>
>> I have to _vehemently_ disagree. One way many people learn how to be good
>> coders it by looking at other people's code and being able to see what it
>> does. Not only that, but the assumption that it's less likely to have bugs
>> because it is obtuse?! Are you serious?
>
> You've the freedom agree or disagree but not _vehemently_. Everyone should
> respect other's opinion and so do I with respectfully.
Er… um… yeah. Sorry about that. This is something that I am very frustrated by
whenever I dig into the Wonder code. It always just feels like the developer
that wrote it is saying "Ha, ha, Dave! I'm better than you! I made something
work that will take you hours to figure out how I did it! Why don't you just
give up now and go back to being a business analyst."
But, that's my own issue. I know developers aren't saying that. Well, most
aren't. Okay, Chuck is, but nobody besides him. (It huts me, Chuck. My
therapist told me to be honest with you.)
> One must learn the language syntax. Why should I use such a verbosity in code
> when it's already easy to understand.
>
> int max = (x > y) ? x : y;
>
> is much better in readability than:
>
> int max = 0;
>
> if (x > y) {
> max = x;
> } else {
> max = y;
> }
See, that's the thing, I find the second form much easier to read and to be
sure that I know exactly what is happening. Now in such a simple example the
first's syntax isn't all that hard (even for me) to read either, but I do need
to stop and basically translate it into the second in my head. That's just the
way I am.
I'm not saying that all code should be in the second's form, I'm just saying
that there should be a middle ground somewhere.
I'm not a human compiler. I wish I were. There is some amazing features in
Wonder written by people who can think in code, but I just don't. After almost
8 years using Wonder, I still have a hard very hard time understanding what
many parts of Wonder do.
I guess my issue isn't really about verbose vs compact, but clear vs cryptic.
>> This is one of the most elitist things I've heard said on the WO-dev list.
>
> If this is so bad practice
Let me be clear, I'm not saying it is always a bad practice. I just think it is
disingenuous to say "Everyone should contribute to Wonder. Look at the code for
examples of how to do things." and then say "Sorry you don't understand what we
elite coders write, once you are better you'll work it out."
> then why Project Coin introduces Strings in switches, developer can still do
> if-elseif-elseif-elseif...else coding. This is in fact elite coding style :)
> Following is excerpt for String.java
>
> public boolean equalsIgnoreCase(String s)
> {
> return this != s ? s != null && s.count == count &&
> regionMatches(true, 0, s, 0, count) : true;
> }
>
> We really shouldn't go into coding convention domain. I respect everyone's
> style and we should try to learn the best practices. Trust me verbosity is
> good for examples but in practice, we should compact our code as much as we
> can.
Why? Please explain to me the benefits of being compact to the point that a new
developer, or an old one like myself, will find it cryptic.
Refills of braces, tabs, spaces and carriage returns for the eclipse text
editor are very inexpensive, and only a few baby platypuses are killed to make
them these days, so I know it can't be concern about using too many. :-)
Dave
—————————————————————————————
WebObjects - so easy that even Dave Avendasora can do it!™
—————————————————————————————
David Avendasora
Senior Software Abuser
Kaiten, Inc.
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list ([email protected])
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
This email sent to [email protected]
