Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > Java > About java program.

Reply
Thread Tools

About java program.

 
 
Robert Klemme
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-20-2013
On 20.06.2013 10:23, Sven Köhler wrote:
> Am 19.06.2013 22:20, schrieb Robert Klemme:
>> boolean result = false;
>> try {
>> result = whatEver() || somethingElse();
>> }
>> catch (whatever...) {
>> no return or change of result
>> }

>
> I would like to add, that I dislike the initialization of result in this
> example. If result (for whatever reason) must be declared outside the
> try-catch block, then please don't initialize it unless you plan on
> doing something nasty.


Absolutely. The reason is that by initializing the variable you forgo
the Java compiler's data flow analysis. Without initialization you will
immediately know if there is a code path which uses the variable without
prior initialization.

> A nasty example would be that the try block sets
> result to true midway and an exception in the second half doesn't change
> the value of result to false for some weired reason.


Right.

> The IMHO cleaner way is the following:
>
> boolean result;


I'd even recommend making that variable final if possible.

> try {
> result = whatEver() || somethingElse();
> }
> catch (whatever...) {
> result = false;
> }
> // use result for whatever


Generally I prefer not to have code after the catch block (unless it's a
finally block ) because that means that error handling is not
centralized but rather interspersed with other logic. I have seen
methods with multiple try catch blocks in them on the same level which
made them really unreadable. If that is necessary then I'd either
combine catch blocks and if that cannot be done I'd rather refactor
reasonable sections into separate methods.

> And may all (ex-)C programmers in this group refrain from telling me
> that not initializing variables is dangerous. This is Java, where the
> compiler enforces initialization of variables on all code paths before
> the first read-access to the variable.


Exactly. And another difference to C is that you can declare variables
anywhere - not just at the top of the method body. I have seen too many
Java methods which did that and used the variable 30 lines below. That
really makes reading and understanding code hard.

Cheers

robert



--
remember.guy do |as, often| as.you_can - without end
http://blog.rubybestpractices.com/

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Arved Sandstrom
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-21-2013
On 06/19/2013 11:42 AM, Daniele Futtorovic wrote:
> On 18/06/2013 22:50, Arved Sandstrom allegedly wrote:
>> <snip />
>> See my answer to Eric, all this is just ridiculing reasonable
>> programming practices.
>>
>> Even given Robert's example where the NPE-safe equals() is wrapped in a
>> method that constrains the type of object being compared to, it may not
>> be expected or acceptable that the String is null. So perhaps you do
>> want to check for that, maybe with Apache StringUtils.isBlank().
>>
>> Sure, the contrived absurd examples are retarded; so is the mockery of
>> defensive programming. Oh well, there's a reason why most software
>> projects still fail or go vastly over budget.

>
> I'm all for defensive programming, but I think that there's a limit
> where it can be on the verge of silliness, and that that limit has been
> grazed here.
>
> Less-than-bright programmers IMO cannot be a justification for crossing
> that line; less-than-bright programmers have more ways to mess things up
> than you could possibly ever guard against. "Do not underestimate the
> ingenuity of complete fools", as the saying goes.
>
> And for me, there is an additional aspect: if a piece of code does
> something simple, something basic, then I will want it to be short, and
> vice-versa. Verbosity of code, to me, should hold a first-glance
> indication of the complexity of the algorithm. In other words: be terse
> IFF it's basic, be verbose IFF it's not.
>
> Perhaps your mileage does vary. No beef with that. Just throwing in my
> two cents.
>

It's a good discussion. I'm not personally convinced that verbosity adds
complexity, as a rule. There's really two types of complexity here:
maintainability complexity - as in, can Joe Blow 12 months later
understand the code best if it's compact versus unrolled, and formal
complexity, cyclomatic and otherwise.

I'll admit that verbosity does usually add maintainability complexity,
if not the other kind. But not always. I've seen plenty of code that is
conceptually quite complex but very terse.

AHS

--
When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign:
that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him.
-- Jonathan Swift
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Joerg Meier
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-21-2013
On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 04:16:32 +0000 (UTC), Martin Gregorie wrote:

> [...]


> days = gdatebin(String.format("%02d/%02d/%02d",day, month, year));
> return gbindate(days - 1);
> }


> ... and wasn't much longer in assembler.


> gdatebin() converted a date string into binary days since 31/12/1899 and
> gbindate() did the reverse. I have no idea why the bloke thought his mess
> of assembler would fall over after Feb 2100: the 1900 held dates in a
> signed 24 bit number, so its Y2K moment isn't due until some time in
> 24866 AD.


It's ironic that after all that, your algorithm would have failed on Y2K

Liebe Gruesse,
Joerg

--
Ich lese meine Emails nicht, replies to Email bleiben also leider
ungelesen.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Daniele Futtorovic
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-21-2013
On 21/06/2013 04:33, Arved Sandstrom allegedly wrote:
> On 06/19/2013 11:42 AM, Daniele Futtorovic wrote:
>> I'm all for defensive programming, but I think that there's a limit
>> where it can be on the verge of silliness, and that that limit has been
>> grazed here.
>>
>> Less-than-bright programmers IMO cannot be a justification for crossing
>> that line; less-than-bright programmers have more ways to mess things up
>> than you could possibly ever guard against. "Do not underestimate the
>> ingenuity of complete fools", as the saying goes.
>>
>> And for me, there is an additional aspect: if a piece of code does
>> something simple, something basic, then I will want it to be short, and
>> vice-versa. Verbosity of code, to me, should hold a first-glance
>> indication of the complexity of the algorithm. In other words: be terse
>> IFF it's basic, be verbose IFF it's not.
>>
>> Perhaps your mileage does vary. No beef with that. Just throwing in my
>> two cents.
>>

> It's a good discussion. I'm not personally convinced that verbosity adds
> complexity, as a rule. There's really two types of complexity here:
> maintainability complexity - as in, can Joe Blow 12 months later
> understand the code best if it's compact versus unrolled, and formal
> complexity, cyclomatic and otherwise.
>
> I'll admit that verbosity does usually add maintainability complexity,
> if not the other kind. But not always. I've seen plenty of code that is
> conceptually quite complex but very terse.


Sorry to nitpick, but I don't think you understood me right. I'm not
saying that verbosity adds complexity; I'm saying: if the piece of code
does something tricky, something complicated, tend to make it verbose,
otherwise, tend to make it terse. Thus, seeing a big blob of (e.g.
unrolled, step-by-step) code holds the message "here be dragons". (And
if it cannot be made verbose, then it means it absolutely requires an
in-line comment).

At least the way I perceived it, this discussion was about making stuff
verbose indiscriminately, viz. basic code as well. I disagree with that
in the above sense.

--
DF.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Joerg Meier
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-21-2013
On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 21:14:39 +0000 (UTC), Martin Gregorie wrote:

> On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 12:27:49 +0200, Joerg Meier wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 04:16:32 +0000 (UTC), Martin Gregorie wrote:
>>> [...]


>>> days = gdatebin(String.format("%02d/%02d/%02d",day, month, year));
>>> return gbindate(days - 1);
>>> }


>>> ... and wasn't much longer in assembler.


>>> gdatebin() converted a date string into binary days since 31/12/1899
>>> and gbindate() did the reverse. I have no idea why the bloke thought
>>> his mess of assembler would fall over after Feb 2100: the 1900 held
>>> dates in a signed 24 bit number, so its Y2K moment isn't due until some
>>> time in 24866 AD.

>> It's ironic that after all that, your algorithm would have failed on Y2K
>>

> How do you work that out?


I must apologize for prompting this long (but interesting) post based on a
mistake on my part: my sleep-deprived brain forgot about that pesky 400
year thing affecting 2000. That seems to happen a lot to my posts here
lately. In other words: my bad, I see nothing wrong (other than the +1
thing).

Liebe Gruesse,
Joerg

--
Ich lese meine Emails nicht, replies to Email bleiben also leider
ungelesen.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Arved Sandstrom
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-22-2013
On 06/21/2013 11:24 AM, Daniele Futtorovic wrote:
> On 21/06/2013 04:33, Arved Sandstrom allegedly wrote:
>> On 06/19/2013 11:42 AM, Daniele Futtorovic wrote:
>>> I'm all for defensive programming, but I think that there's a limit
>>> where it can be on the verge of silliness, and that that limit has been
>>> grazed here.
>>>
>>> Less-than-bright programmers IMO cannot be a justification for crossing
>>> that line; less-than-bright programmers have more ways to mess things up
>>> than you could possibly ever guard against. "Do not underestimate the
>>> ingenuity of complete fools", as the saying goes.
>>>
>>> And for me, there is an additional aspect: if a piece of code does
>>> something simple, something basic, then I will want it to be short, and
>>> vice-versa. Verbosity of code, to me, should hold a first-glance
>>> indication of the complexity of the algorithm. In other words: be terse
>>> IFF it's basic, be verbose IFF it's not.
>>>
>>> Perhaps your mileage does vary. No beef with that. Just throwing in my
>>> two cents.
>>>

>> It's a good discussion. I'm not personally convinced that verbosity adds
>> complexity, as a rule. There's really two types of complexity here:
>> maintainability complexity - as in, can Joe Blow 12 months later
>> understand the code best if it's compact versus unrolled, and formal
>> complexity, cyclomatic and otherwise.
>>
>> I'll admit that verbosity does usually add maintainability complexity,
>> if not the other kind. But not always. I've seen plenty of code that is
>> conceptually quite complex but very terse.

>
> Sorry to nitpick, but I don't think you understood me right. I'm not
> saying that verbosity adds complexity; I'm saying: if the piece of code
> does something tricky, something complicated, tend to make it verbose,
> otherwise, tend to make it terse. Thus, seeing a big blob of (e.g.
> unrolled, step-by-step) code holds the message "here be dragons". (And
> if it cannot be made verbose, then it means it absolutely requires an
> in-line comment).


We're very much in agreement, on all points you just made.

> At least the way I perceived it, this discussion was about making stuff
> verbose indiscriminately, viz. basic code as well. I disagree with that
> in the above sense.
>

I won't speak for anyone else, the argument I was making was for
verbosity in support of defensive programming. I see Java code all the
time where exceptions are try-caught with no thought placed into
handling the problem somewhere - defensive coding fail...and handling it
properly would add verbosity.

I see main methods all the time where someone assumes the number and
type of arguments. Defensive coding fail. I see methods all the time -
like I said - where the same coder wrote the calling code and called
code, and makes assumptions about what the calling code will do.
Defensive coding fail.

Or they make the naive assumption that people read Javadocs thoroughly.
It's not the calling code's responsibility to protect the called code,
after all. Given that we have to consider the bounds of parameters
carefully, I don't see how some verbosity in the form of defensive code
is objectionable.

"Here be dragons" often means simply that there is - that we have to
guard against what the calling code is doing.

AHS

--
When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign:
that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him.
-- Jonathan Swift
 
Reply With Quote
 
Arved Sandstrom
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-22-2013
On 06/21/2013 01:16 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 23:33:56 -0300, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
>
>> It's a good discussion. I'm not personally convinced that verbosity adds
>> complexity, as a rule. There's really two types of complexity here:
>> maintainability complexity - as in, can Joe Blow 12 months later
>> understand the code best if it's compact versus unrolled, and formal
>> complexity, cyclomatic and otherwise.
>>

> I'm with you there.
>
>> I'll admit that verbosity does usually add maintainability complexity,
>>

> My attitude is that well-laid out code with well-thought out names and
> intelligently commented offers about the best chance of being more easily
> maintainable. I prefer blocks of well formatted and carefully written
> comments places ahead of what they describe to any other type.
>
>> if not the other kind. But not always. I've seen plenty of code that is
>> conceptually quite complex but very terse.
>>

> I've certainly see some memorable examples of badly documented and over-
> clever code in the past.
>
> One of my favourite examples of bad documentation was actually quite good
> code: it was just the commenting style that was naff. This was MC 6800
> assembler, and the house style was to add a comment alongside every
> instruction whether it needed it or not: the machine had INC and DEC
> instructions to and or subtract 1 from a register, but did it really add
> anything the write "BUMP THE B REGISTER" alongside every INC B
> instruction?
>
> As it happens, my worst ever example was also assembler: this time PLAN 3
> assembler for an ICL 1900. In this case it was a lineprinter page, i.e.
> about 60 instructions whose task was the work out the date of the last
> day of the current month so it could be printed on financial statements.
> it worked by doing arithmetic on the current date in "dd/mm/yy" format
> This page has two comments: the first said "Calculate the last day of the
> month" and the second said "Works until Feb 2100". The rest of the page
> contained a mess of register-to-register operations and relative
> branches. There wasn't a single label or variable name in the whole mess.
> I never met anybody who could follow it past its first dozen steps - and
> that includes me - and I used to be fairly good at programming in PLAN.
>
> The silly thing was that the date calculation was trivial on a 1900,
> which held dates internally as days since 31 Dec 1899 and provided a set
> of date manipulation subroutines. The obvious solution, given that
> library, and writing the routine in pseudo-Java in deference to this 'ere
> august forum, looks like this:
>
> public String lastDayOfMonth(String today)
> {
> int day = 1;
> int month = today.substring(3,2);
> int year = today.substring(6);
> if (month > 12)
> {
> year++;
> month = 1;
> }
>
> days = gdatebin(String.format("%02d/%02d/%02d",day, month, year));
> return gbindate(days - 1);
> }
>
> ... and wasn't much longer in assembler.
>
> gdatebin() converted a date string into binary days since 31/12/1899 and
> gbindate() did the reverse. I have no idea why the bloke thought his mess
> of assembler would fall over after Feb 2100: the 1900 held dates in a
> signed 24 bit number, so its Y2K moment isn't due until some time in
> 24866 AD.
>
> And, yes, I do know my algorithm worked correctly despite leap years and
> all: it ran for years as part of an accounting package and anybody could
> see exactly how it worked even though it was written in COBOL.
>
>

Ahhh, dates. Just this last fall had to bypass front ends for a
mainstream financial system and get at the DB directly. No docs worth a
damn, not even a good data dictionary for the database, so I had to use
the front end programs to generate DB activity of the sort I wanted
while I ran a SQL Server profiler trace. I cleaned up the trace and
looked at the dates...what is this, I thought? Integer numbers in the
seven hundred thousands. It took a bit of sleuthing to find out that it
was rata die dates.

There is no clean way of doing rata die <-> java.util.Calendar
conversions. And that nasty little 0.5 day floating point adjustment is
a bugger. It's only now after 9 months of production that I have a warm
fuzzy about the thing being solid.

AHS

--
When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign:
that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him.
-- Jonathan Swift
 
Reply With Quote
 
Daniele Futtorovic
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-22-2013
On 22/06/2013 03:39, Arved Sandstrom allegedly wrote:
> On 06/21/2013 11:24 AM, Daniele Futtorovic wrote:
>> On 21/06/2013 04:33, Arved Sandstrom allegedly wrote:
>>> On 06/19/2013 11:42 AM, Daniele Futtorovic wrote:
>>>> I'm all for defensive programming, but I think that there's a limit
>>>> where it can be on the verge of silliness, and that that limit has been
>>>> grazed here.
>>>>
>>>> Less-than-bright programmers IMO cannot be a justification for crossing
>>>> that line; less-than-bright programmers have more ways to mess
>>>> things up
>>>> than you could possibly ever guard against. "Do not underestimate the
>>>> ingenuity of complete fools", as the saying goes.
>>>>
>>>> And for me, there is an additional aspect: if a piece of code does
>>>> something simple, something basic, then I will want it to be short, and
>>>> vice-versa. Verbosity of code, to me, should hold a first-glance
>>>> indication of the complexity of the algorithm. In other words: be terse
>>>> IFF it's basic, be verbose IFF it's not.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps your mileage does vary. No beef with that. Just throwing in my
>>>> two cents.
>>>>
>>> It's a good discussion. I'm not personally convinced that verbosity adds
>>> complexity, as a rule. There's really two types of complexity here:
>>> maintainability complexity - as in, can Joe Blow 12 months later
>>> understand the code best if it's compact versus unrolled, and formal
>>> complexity, cyclomatic and otherwise.
>>>
>>> I'll admit that verbosity does usually add maintainability complexity,
>>> if not the other kind. But not always. I've seen plenty of code that is
>>> conceptually quite complex but very terse.

>>
>> Sorry to nitpick, but I don't think you understood me right. I'm not
>> saying that verbosity adds complexity; I'm saying: if the piece of code
>> does something tricky, something complicated, tend to make it verbose,
>> otherwise, tend to make it terse. Thus, seeing a big blob of (e.g.
>> unrolled, step-by-step) code holds the message "here be dragons". (And
>> if it cannot be made verbose, then it means it absolutely requires an
>> in-line comment).

>
> We're very much in agreement, on all points you just made.
>
>> At least the way I perceived it, this discussion was about making stuff
>> verbose indiscriminately, viz. basic code as well. I disagree with that
>> in the above sense.
>>

> I won't speak for anyone else, the argument I was making was for
> verbosity in support of defensive programming. I see Java code all the
> time where exceptions are try-caught with no thought placed into
> handling the problem somewhere - defensive coding fail...and handling it
> properly would add verbosity.
>
> I see main methods all the time where someone assumes the number and
> type of arguments. Defensive coding fail. I see methods all the time -
> like I said - where the same coder wrote the calling code and called
> code, and makes assumptions about what the calling code will do.
> Defensive coding fail.
>
> Or they make the naive assumption that people read Javadocs thoroughly.
> It's not the calling code's responsibility to protect the called code,
> after all. Given that we have to consider the bounds of parameters
> carefully, I don't see how some verbosity in the form of defensive code
> is objectionable.
>
> "Here be dragons" often means simply that there is - that we have to
> guard against what the calling code is doing.


I see. Thanks for clarifying.

It looks like I had not understood the discussion about verbosity in the
same sense as you do. In my view, when talking about verbosity, we talk
about a measure on, and that's the important point, an iso-functional
basis. To illustrate, when I switch on a "verbose" flag on my command
line, I do not expect the command to perform any differently than before
-- only that it should be more talkative about it. But the functions it
performs should not be impacted by it.

To illustrate with code, and to pick some of the original examples
again, take the following two methods:

boolean method1( String input ){
return "yes".equals( input );
}

boolean method2( String input ){
final boolean ret;
if( input == null ){
ret = false;
}
else if( input.equals("yes") ){
ret = true;
}
else {
ret = false;
}

return ret;
}

This is what I mean. Both methods perform exactly the same for any
input. The only matter in which they differ is their verbosity.

And to pick up the argument again: it could be argued that the latter
form is preferable, because it is more obvious what happens in each
case. I argue against that. Not generally, but in this case. Because
what's going on there is a very basic operation (making sure the input
is exactly the String "yes"). The second form is too verbose -- that is,
so verbose that it becomes clutter. The first (non-verbose) form
expresses the intent clearly enough. If there is a "programmer" who does
not understand that (especially the null-implication), then I'm sure Lew
would have some poignant recommendations as to what avenues of
employment they rather ought to pursue, and I would happen to be in
agreement with him.

Some of what you are talking about, on the topic of defensive
programming, on the other hand, I would call functional defects. I do
not perceive those as being matters of verbosity or not, but of whether
the code is functionally complete or not. To your hypothetical
programmer who does not handle exceptions because it would supposedly
add verbosity, "verbosity" is but a pathetic front to mask either their
lack of professionalism.

The other examples you give definitely fall in the realm of defensive
programming. Yes, a method should not make hidden assumptions as to its
parameters (OTOH there would be nothing wrong per se with what I'd call
an explicit assumption along the lines of: if( argumentNotValid ) throw
new IllegalArgumentException(); ). Yes, every caller should be defensive
about what the callee might return (within the boundaries of its
contract). It should be noted that annotations have given us a potential
tool forcibly to impose more stringency in these regards, although the
way I see it it won't really be usable until teh Oracle makes the effort
to formalise them and adds them to the core lib (I mean things like
@NotNull). It still needs to mature a bit I think.

The aforementioned is mitigated in code that is internal to a component
(in the spirit of encapsulation, code ought to be divided into
components such that the density of interrelation of code within a
component is always strictly greater than that of interrelation of code
in different components). Think private or package-private methods. It
is often impractical and counter-productive to have
to forego any hidden assumptions in those parts of the code. Then again,
it is precisely the combination of these two aspects, that it is
impractical and that it would be necessary, which makes OO and esp.
encapsulation such a virtuous tool: by structuring code and data flow,
you *can* relegate, notably, input checks to the boundaries of the
component and operate on assumptions within the component. (Granted,
this does not help the case where multiple programmers who are not in
relation with each other work on the internals of the same component,
which is why such a situation should be avoided).

--
DF.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Daniele Futtorovic
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-22-2013
On 22/06/2013 10:03, lipska the kat allegedly wrote:
> On 21/06/13 15:24, Daniele Futtorovic wrote:
>> On 21/06/2013 04:33, Arved Sandstrom allegedly wrote:
>>> On 06/19/2013 11:42 AM, Daniele Futtorovic wrote:
>>>> I'm all for defensive programming, but I think that there's a limit
>>>> where it can be on the verge of silliness, and that that limit has been
>>>> grazed here.
>>>>
>>>> Less-than-bright programmers IMO cannot be a justification for crossing
>>>> that line; less-than-bright programmers have more ways to mess
>>>> things up
>>>> than you could possibly ever guard against. "Do not underestimate the
>>>> ingenuity of complete fools", as the saying goes.
>>>>
>>>> And for me, there is an additional aspect: if a piece of code does
>>>> something simple, something basic, then I will want it to be short, and
>>>> vice-versa. Verbosity of code, to me, should hold a first-glance
>>>> indication of the complexity of the algorithm. In other words: be terse
>>>> IFF it's basic, be verbose IFF it's not.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps your mileage does vary. No beef with that. Just throwing in my
>>>> two cents.
>>>>
>>> It's a good discussion. I'm not personally convinced that verbosity adds
>>> complexity, as a rule. There's really two types of complexity here:
>>> maintainability complexity - as in, can Joe Blow 12 months later
>>> understand the code best if it's compact versus unrolled, and formal
>>> complexity, cyclomatic and otherwise.
>>>
>>> I'll admit that verbosity does usually add maintainability complexity,
>>> if not the other kind. But not always. I've seen plenty of code that is
>>> conceptually quite complex but very terse.

>>
>> Sorry to nitpick, but I don't think you understood me right. I'm not
>> saying that verbosity adds complexity; I'm saying: if the piece of code
>> does something tricky, something complicated, tend to make it verbose,
>> otherwise, tend to make it terse. Thus, seeing a big blob of (e.g.
>> unrolled, step-by-step) code holds the message "here be dragons". (And
>> if it cannot be made verbose, then it means it absolutely requires an
>> in-line comment).
>>
>> At least the way I perceived it, this discussion was about making stuff
>> verbose indiscriminately, viz. basic code as well. I disagree with that
>> in the above sense.

>
> .... and who makes these seemingly arbitrary decisions about what is and
> what isn't 'complex'. This idea that some bits of code can be written
> differently (more/less verbosely) depending on someones definition of
> 'complex' is exactly the sort of thing that makes code less readable.
> Let's be quite clear about this, the *most important* thing
> is readability.


Complexity is an objective measure, relative to the environment
constituted by the software as a whole, of how sensitive the process in
question is.

> Anyone who has experienced 'flow' when writing code will
> know that what was blindingly obvious yesterday can be arcane and obtuse
> today. You need to pick a style and stick with it, not chop and change
> between arbitrary styles on some whim.
>
> I'm tempted to say that this behavior typifies the too clever by half
> attitude that makes our job so frustrating sometimes but that might be
> construed as confrontational so I won't ...


And who makes this arbitrary decision about what is and isn't "too
clever by half"? Cleverness is not a sin. As it were, I strive for it.
Cleverness is the path to betterment, individual as well as human as a
whole. If you aren't clever or don't want to be, that's not my problem,
but get out of my way.

--
DF.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Daniele Futtorovic
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-23-2013
On 22/06/2013 20:41, lipska the kat allegedly wrote:
> On 22/06/13 18:25, Daniele Futtorovic wrote:
>> The aforementioned is mitigated in code that is internal to a
>> component (in the spirit of encapsulation, code ought to be divided
>> into components such that the density of interrelation of code
>> within a component is always strictly greater than that of
>> interrelation of code in different components).

>
> You mean it should be cohesive (the code in a component), still, why
> use one word when fifty will do.
>
> as you say.
>
> "verbosity is but a pathetic front to mask either their lack of
> professionalism" [sic]


No, I did not simply say it should be cohesive. If you want to
substitute "cohesiveness" for "density of interrelation" (which is fair
enough), I said it should be more cohesive within the component than
between components, and that this is what characterises something as
being a component. Not the same thing.

But still, assuming it were the same thing for a moment (which, again,
it is not by a wide stretch), do you really think that completely
twisting my words, under the guise of quoting me, to proceed to
advocate, for a natural and hence inexact language, a practice which you
rebuke me for advocating for a computer and hence exact language is
going to induce me to take you seriously?

--
DF.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
I need your advices about C prg. Dogukan Bayraktar C Programming 76 06-16-2013 08:54 AM
Survey about Software Integration Martin Dias C Programming 0 04-29-2013 03:23 PM
Quesion about running a exe file in Python(Not enough memory) yuyaxuan0@gmail.com Python 5 04-26-2013 06:30 AM
silly question about Running a script from the command line A.Rock Python 0 04-10-2013 11:21 AM
newbie question about confusing exception handling in urllib cabbar@gmail.com Python 6 04-09-2013 07:11 PM



Advertisments