Search Results

Search found 525 results on 21 pages for 'readability'.

Page 2/21 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

• Pythonic Java. Yes, or no?

  - by OscarRyz

  Python use of indentation for code scope was initially very polemic and now is considered one of the best language features, because it helps ( almost by forcing us ) to have a consistent style. Well, I saw this post http://bit.ly/hmvTe9 where someone posted Java code with ; y {} aligned to the right margin to look more pythonic. It was very shocking at first ( as a matter of fact, if I ever see Java code like that in one of my projects I would be scared! ) However, there is something interesting here. Do we need all those braces and semicolons? How would the code would look like without them? class Person int age void greet( String a ) if( a == "" ) out.println("Hello stranger") else out.printf("Hello %s%n", a ) int age() return this.age class Main void main() new Person().greet("") Looks good to me, but in such small piece of code is hard to appreciate it, and since I don't Python too much, I can't tell by looking at existing libraries if it would be cleaner or not. So I took the first file of a library named: jAlarms I found and this is the result: ( WARNING : the following image may be disturbing for some people ) http://pxe.pastebin.com/eU1R4xsh Obviously it doesn't compile. This would be a compiling version using right aligned {} and ; http://pxe.pastebin.com/2uijtbYM Question What would happen if we could code like this? Would it make things clearer? Would it make it harder? I see braces, and semicolons as help to the parser and we, as humans have get used to them, but do we really need them? I guess is hard to tell specially since many mainstream languages do use braces, C, C++, Java, C# JavaScript Assuming the compiler wouldn't have problems without them, would you use them? Please comment.

  Read the article

• How would you know if you've written readable and easily maintainable code?

  - by KyelJmD

  How would one know if the code he has created is easily maintainable and readable? Of course in your point of view (the one who actually wrote the code) your code is readable and maintainable, but we should be true to ourselves here. How would we know if we've written pretty messy and unmaintainable code? Are there any constructs or guidelines to know if we have developed a messy piece of software?

  Read the article

• Gathering all data in single iteration vs using functions for readable code

  - by user828584

  Say I have an array of runners with which I need to find the tallest runner, the fastest runner, and the lightest runner. It seems like the most readable solution would be: runners = getRunners(); tallestRunner = getTallestRunner(runners); fastestRunner = getFastestRunner(runners); lightestRunner = getLightestRunner(runners); ..where each function iterates over the runners and keeps track of the largest height, greatest speed, and lowest weight. Iterating over the array three times, however, doesn't seem like a very good idea. It would instead be better to do: int greatestHeght, greatestSpeed, leastWeight; Runner tallestRunner, fastestRunner, lightestRunner; for(runner in runners){ if(runner.height > greatestHeight) { greatestHeight = runner.height; tallestRunner = runner; } if(runner.speed > ... } While this isn't too unreadable, it can get messy when there is more logic for each piece of information being extracted in the iteration. What's the middle ground here? How can I use only a single iteration while still keeping the code divided into logical units?

  Read the article

• Run On Sentences in Technical Writing

  - by Sean Noodleson Neilan

  This is just a question to think about. When you write technical documentation and programming comments, do you ever find yourself writing run-on sentences in order to be more precise? Is packing more technical information into one sentence better than creating many little sentences each with a little bit of technical information? I know it's better to have lots of little classes in their own little files. Perhaps this doesn't apply to writing?

  Read the article

• Which is more maintainable -- boolean assignment via if/else or boolean expression?

  - by Bret Walker

  Which would be considered more maintainable? if (a == b) c = true; else c = false; or c = (a == b); I've tried looking in Code Complete, but can't find an answer. I think the first is more readable (you can literally read it out loud), which I also think makes it more maintainable. The second one certainly makes more sense and reduces code, but I'm not sure it's as maintainable for C# developers (I'd expect to see this idiom more in, for example, Python).

  Read the article

• Which programming language do you think is the most beautiful and which the ugliest? [closed]

  - by user1598390

  I would like to hear opinions about what programming language do you consider to produce the most legible, self-documenting, intention-transparent, beautiful-looking code ? And which produces the most messy-looking, unintentionally obfuscated, ugly code, regardless of it being good code ? Let me clarify: I'm talking about the syntax, "noise vs signal", structure of the language. Assignment operators. De-referencing. Whether it's dot syntax or "-" syntax. What languages do you think are inherently harder to read than others, given all other things being equal like, say, code quality, absence of code smells, etc. ?

  Read the article

• Is it a bad idea to list every function/method argument on a new line and why?

  - by dgnball

  I work with someone who, every time they call a function they put the arguments on a new line e.g. aFunction( byte1, short1, int1, int2, int3, int4, int5 ) ; I find this very annoying as it means the code isn't very compact, so I have to scan up and down more to actually make any sense of the logic. I'm interested to know whether this is actually bad practice and if so, how can I persuade them not to do it?

  Read the article

• Is nesting types considered bad practice?

  - by Rob Z

  As noted by the title, is nesting types (e.g. enumerated types or structures in a class) considered bad practice or not? When you run Code Analysis in Visual Studio it returns the following message which implies it is: Warning 34 CA1034 : Microsoft.Design : Do not nest type 'ClassName.StructueName'. Alternatively, change its accessibility so that it is not externally visible. However, when I follow the recommendation of the Code Analysis I find that there tend to be a lot of structures and enumerated types floating around in the application that might only apply to a single class or would only be used with that class. As such, would it be appropriate to nest the type sin that case, or is there a better way of doing it?

  Read the article

• Single or multiple return statements in a function [on hold]

  - by Juan Carlos Coto

  When writing a function that can have several different return values, particularly when different branches of code return different values, what is the cleanest or sanest way of returning? Please note the following are really contrived examples meant only to illustrate different styles. Example 1: Single return def my_function(): if some_condition: return_value = 1 elif another_condition: return_value = 2 else: return_value = 3 return return_value Example 2: Multiple returns def my_function(): if some_condition: return 1 elif another_condition: return 2 else: return 3 The second example seems simpler and is perhaps more readable. The first one, however, might describe the overall logic a bit better (the conditions affect the assignment of the value, not whether it's returned or not). Is the second way preferable to the first? Why?

  Read the article

• "static" as a semantic clue about statelessness?

  - by leoger

  this might be a little philosophical but I hope someone can help me find a good way to think about this. I've recently undertaken a refactoring of a medium sized project in Java to go back and add unit tests. When I realized what a pain it was to mock singletons and statics, I finally "got" what I've been reading about them all this time. (I'm one of those people that needs to learn from experience. Oh well.) So, now that I'm using Spring to create the objects and wire them around, I'm getting rid of static keywords left and right. (If I could potentially want to mock it, it's not really static in the same sense that Math.abs() is, right?) The thing is, I had gotten into the habit of using static to denote that a method didn't rely on any object state. For example: //Before import com.thirdparty.ThirdPartyLibrary.Thingy; public class ThirdPartyLibraryWrapper { public static Thingy newThingy(InputType input) { new Thingy.Builder().withInput(input).alwaysFrobnicate().build(); } } //called as... ThirdPartyLibraryWrapper.newThingy(input); //After public class ThirdPartyFactory { public Thingy newThingy(InputType input) { new Thingy.Builder().withInput(input).alwaysFrobnicate().build(); } } //called as... thirdPartyFactoryInstance.newThingy(input); So, here's where it gets touchy-feely. I liked the old way because the capital letter told me that, just like Math.sin(x), ThirdPartyLibraryWrapper.newThingy(x) did the same thing the same way every time. There's no object state to change how the object does what I'm asking it to do. Here are some possible answers I'm considering. Nobody else feels this way so there's something wrong with me. Maybe I just haven't really internalized the OO way of doing things! Maybe I'm writing in Java but thinking in FORTRAN or somesuch. (Which would be impressive since I've never written FORTRAN.) Maybe I'm using staticness as a sort of proxy for immutability for the purposes of reasoning about code. That being said, what clues should I have in my code for someone coming along to maintain it to know what's stateful and what's not? Perhaps this should just come for free if I choose good object metaphors? e.g. thingyWrapper doesn't sound like it has state indepdent of the wrapped Thingy which may itself be mutable. Similarly, a thingyFactory sounds like it should be immutable but could have different strategies that are chosen among at creation. I hope I've been clear and thanks in advance for your advice!

  Read the article

• Are long methods always bad?

  - by wobbily_col

  So looking around earlier I noticed some comments about long methods being bad practice. I am not sure I always agree that long methods are bad (and would like opinions from others). For example I have some Django views that do a bit of processing of the objects before sending them to the view, a long method being 350 lines of code. I have my code written so that it deals with the paramaters - sorting / filtering the queryset, then bit by bit does some processing on the objects my query has returned. So the processing is mainly conditional aggregation, that has complex enough rules it can't easily be done in the database, so I have some variables declared outside the main loop then get altered during the loop. varaible_1 = 0 variable_2 = 0 for object in queryset : if object.condition_condition_a and variable_2 > 0 : variable 1+= 1 ..... ... . more conditions to alter the variables return queryset, and context So according to the theory I should factor out all the code into smaller methods, so That I have the view method as being maximum one page long. However having worked on various code bases in the past, I sometimes find it makes the code less readable, when you need to constantly jump from one method to the next figuring out all the parts of it, while keeping the outermost method in your head. I find that having a long method that is well formatted, you can see the logic more easily, as it isn't getting hidden away in inner methods. I could factor out the code into smaller methods, but often there is is an inner loop being used for two or three things, so it would result in more complex code, or methods that don't do one thing but two or three (alternatively I could repeat inner loops for each task, but then there will be a performance hit). So is there a case that long methods are not always bad? Is there always a case for writing methods, when they will only be used in one place?

  Read the article

• Using implode, explode etc.. on one line vs separating them into multiple lines with meaningful variable names

  - by zhenka

  I see a lot of people coding in PHP being rather proud if they manage to write a complicated one line statement that does clever things. But what is the advantage? It is not only harder to keep in once head while writing, but makes code much less readable. In my opinion reading short statements, if well written, can be like reading an essay, while complicated one liners can potentially make me pause and think for much longer then it would take for the coder to simply separate them into meaningful units. Am I wrong in thinking this? How would you go about proving your point to another programmer regarding this?

  Read the article

• Checking timeouts made more readable

  - by Markus

  I have several situations where I need to control timeouts in a technical application. Either in a loop or as a simple check. Of course – handling this is really easy, but none of these is looking cute. To clarify, here is some C# (Pseudo) code: private DateTime girlWentIntoBathroom; girlWentIntoBathroom = DateTime.Now; do { // do something } while (girlWentIntoBathroom.AddSeconds(10) > DateTime.Now); or if (girlWentIntoBathroom.AddSeconds(10) > DateTime.Now) MessageBox.Show("Wait a little longer"); else MessageBox.Show("Knock louder"); Now I was inspired by something a saw in Ruby on StackOverflow: Now I’m wondering if this construct can be made more readable using extension methods. My goal is something that can be read like “If girlWentIntoBathroom is more than 10 seconds ago” 1st attempt if (girlWentIntoBathroom > (10).Seconds().Ago()) MessageBox.Show("Wait a little longer"); else MessageBox.Show("Knock louder"); So I wrote an extension for integer that converts the integer into a TimeSpan public static TimeSpan Seconds(this int amount) { return new TimeSpan(0, 0, amount); } After that, I wrote an extension for TimeSpan like this: public static DateTime Ago(this TimeSpan diff) { return DateTime.Now.Add(-diff); } This works fine so far, but has a great disadvantage. The logic is inverted! Since girlWentIntoBathroom is a timestamp in the past, the right side of the equation needs to count backwards: impossible. Just inverting the equation is no solution, because it will invert the read sentence as well. 2nd attempt So I tried something new: if (girlWentIntoBathroom.IsMoreThan(10).SecondsAgo()) MessageBox.Show("Knock louder"); else MessageBox.Show("Wait a little longer"); IsMoreThan() needs to transport the past timestamp as well as the span for the extension SecondsAgo(). It could be: public static DateWithIntegerSpan IsMoreThan(this DateTime baseTime, int span) { return new DateWithIntegerSpan() { Date = baseTime, Span = span }; } Where DateWithIntegerSpan is simply: public class DateWithIntegerSpan { public DateTime Date {get; set;} public int Span { get; set; } } And SecondsAgo() is public static bool SecondsAgo(this DateWithIntegerSpan dateAndSpan) { return dateAndSpan.Date.Add(new TimeSpan(0, 0, dateAndSpan.Span)) < DateTime.Now; } Using this approach, the English sentence matches the expected behavior. But the disadvantage is, that I need a helping class (DateWithIntegerSpan). Has anyone an idea to make checking timeouts look more cute and closer to a readable sentence? Am I a little too insane thinking about something minor like this?

  Read the article

• while(true) and loop-breaking - anti-pattern?

  - by KeithS

  Consider the following code: public void doSomething(int input) { while(true) { TransformInSomeWay(input); if(ProcessingComplete(input)) break; DoSomethingElseTo(input); } } Assume that this process involves a finite but input-dependent number of steps; the loop is designed to terminate on its own as a result of the algorithm, and is not designed to run indefinitely (until cancelled by an outside event). Because the test to see if the loop should end is in the middle of a logical set of steps, the while loop itself currently doesn't check anything meaningful; the check is instead performed at the "proper" place within the conceptual algorithm. I was told that this is bad code, because it is more bug-prone due to the ending condition not being checked by the loop structure. It's more difficult to figure out how you'd exit the loop, and could invite bugs as the breaking condition might be bypassed or omitted accidentally given future changes. Now, the code could be structured as follows: public void doSomething(int input) { TransformInSomeWay(input); while(!ProcessingComplete(input)) { DoSomethingElseTo(input); TransformInSomeWay(input); } } However, this duplicates a call to a method in code, violating DRY; if TransformInSomeWay were later replaced with some other method, both calls would have to be found and changed (and the fact that there are two may be less obvious in a more complex piece of code). You could also write it like: public void doSomething(int input) { var complete = false; while(!complete) { TransformInSomeWay(input); complete = ProcessingComplete(input); if(!complete) { DoSomethingElseTo(input); } } } ... but you now have a variable whose only purpose is to shift the condition-checking to the loop structure, and also has to be checked multiple times to provide the same behavior as the original logic. For my part, I say that given the algorithm this code implements in the real world, the original code is the most readable. If you were going through it yourself, this is the way you'd think about it, and so it would be intuitive to people familiar with the algorithm. So, which is "better"? is it better to give the responsibility of condition checking to the while loop by structuring the logic around the loop? Or is it better to structure the logic in a "natural" way as indicated by requirements or a conceptual description of the algorithm, even though that may mean bypassing the loop's built-in capabilities?

  Read the article

• Is C# becoming harder to read? [closed]

  - by Avi

  As C# has progressed, many language features have been added. It has come to the point where it's becoming unreadable for me. As an example, consider the following code snip from Caliburn.Micro code here: container = CompositionHost.Initialize( new AggregateCatalog( AssemblySource.Instance. Select(x => new AssemblyCatalog(x)) .OfType<ComposablePartCatalog>() ) ); Now, this is just a small example. I have a number of questions: Is this a common or known problem? Is the C# community finding the same? Is this an issue with the language, or is it the style used by the developer? Are there any simple solutions to better understand others code and avoid writing code in this way?

  Read the article

• Change the background color of selected text in Google Docs to increase readability [migrated]

  - by gene_wood

  How can I override or change the background color of text selected in Google Docs? It is difficult for me to see the difference and I would like to increase the contrast or difference. After Google restyled Google Docs last year (or earlier this year), I've been unable to see selected text. It's possible this is a visual deficiency with my eyes. In Google Docs, under both Google Chrome (17.0.963.83 (Official Build 127885) m) and Firefox (11.0), when I select text inside a Google Doc, the selected text has a background of color #d6e0f5. Compare this to the default browser background color of #2f65c0. (I determined the color of the selected text background by taking a screenshot and using the color picker tool in Photoshop). I've tested this using a brand new Firefox profile as well as google chrome profile. Here's a section of a screenshot showing the selected text : I've tried using a userscript to override the CSS to go back to the default text selection color using the "Stylish" plugin with this css : ::selection { background:#2f65c0; color:#ffffff; } ::-moz-selection { background:#2f65c0; color:#ffffff; } ::-webkit-selection { background:#2f65c0; color:#ffffff; } This code works on other sites, but I'm unable to get it to work on Google Docs. (I tested on other sites but applying the userscript to a different domain and using bright yellow instead of the default dark blue #2f65c0.) When you use Google Docs, do you have the same color background for selected text or something different? (To test this, browse to docs.google.com , create a document, type text into the document, select the text with the mouse by dragging over it, take a screenshot, load the screenshot up in an image editor and determine the background color of the selected text.) This color differential (between light blue #d6e0f5 and white #fffff) may be easy to see for others and the problem lies with my eyes.

  Read the article

• Establishing a web page bookmarking process - looking for ideas to improve

  - by Matt

  Like many others, I have a process for bookmarking web pages to read later. My requirements for web page bookmarking are: Ability to bookmark pages must be available from all (within reason) platforms - PC/browser, mobile device, etc. Bookmarks must be centrally stored (implicit from #2) so that I can read the bookmarks from anywhere/any device Full text of web pages must be stored Bonus features would be: Bookmarks and page content should be full text searchable Maintain an archive indefinitely Distinguish between what's read vs. unread Bookmarked page content is cleaned up, e.g. ads eliminated, unnecessary html removed, pages better formatted for reading My current process (which addresses most of these requirements) is as follows: I set up a Gmail account with 2 labels, "Bookmarks Unread" and "Bookmarks Read" Gmail filters set up such that depending on the form of the address (using Gmail's '+string' functionality in addresses), the incoming bookmark gets labeled appropriately On each of my browsers/devices, I have an address book entry for [email protected] and [email protected]. If I want to clean up the page content, I use the Readability bookmarklet which does a great job of giving me the essential content only Anywhere I have Firefox, I use the Send Page by Email extension which, with 2 clicks, allows me to send the cleaned-up Readability page URL and content to one of the above email addresses. Where I don't have Firefox (e.g. iPhone or other mobile device) I use the native ability to send the current link via email (most/all apps have them, including the browser, RSS readers, NYTimes, etc.). In most cases (unless it's built into the particular app), this won't include the page body. The process is almost perfect. I've got the central access and ubiquitous access of Gmail as the storage mechanism, full text searchability (due to Gmail, but of course only for the URLs I send from that Firefox extension), a cleaned up page due to Readability, ability to read offline (assuming I use an IMAP client against Gmail) and permanent archiving of content, including what's been read vs. unread. The missing pieces are: The Send Page by Email Firefox extension seems to only send X bytes of a web page. Or some portion. So it limits my full text searchability. Where I don't have Firefox, I can only send the link, so no full text search at all in those cases. Instapaper looks like it meets most of my requirements (and bonus items). The only downside to me (personal preference) is that central storage is based on Instapaper vs. something more broad like Gmail, which as a generalized service and with Google behind it pretty much means it's permanent. I'm not too hung up on this, but I would definitely prefer to keep Gmail if possible. An upside of Instapaper is that it does the page clean-up as well as stores the entire page content, unlike my Firefox extension. Thoughts on addressing the gaps and improving this process further?

  Read the article

• .net code readability and maintainability

  - by george9170

  There Currently is a local debate as to which code is more readability We have one programmer who comes from a c background and when that programmer codes it looks like string foo = "bar"; if (foo[foo.Length - 1] == 'r') { } We have another programmer that doesn't like this methodology and would rather use if (foo.EndsWith("r")) { } which way of doing these types of operations is better?

  Read the article

• Syntax proposition: readability of templated type declarations

  - by Knowing me knowing you

  I wonder if syntax as follows would be helpful in your opinion as a code readability improvent and self-commenting of code: std::map<std::string name, std::vector<int> scores> myMap; In this example it clearly says and no other comment is needed, what for we are using myMap variable. Looking forward to your opinions.

  Read the article

• Utilities to view web page as text only?

  - by Jim Bancroft

  Hi everyone, I'd like to view web pages as text only on occasion, without images or fancy css backgrounds appearing. Are there any Mozilla or IE plugins that allow this? I've used Readability, and it's not bad but it still downloads pictures. Just wondering what's out there. Thanks!

  Read the article

• Macro to improve callback registration readability

  - by Warren Seine

  I'm trying to write a macro to make a specific usage of callbacks in C++ easier. All my callbacks are member functions and will take this as first argument and a second one whose type inherits from a common base class. The usual way to go is: register_callback(boost::bind(&my_class::member_function, this, _1)); I'd love to write: register_callback(HANDLER(member_function)); Note that it will always be used within the same class. Even if typeof is considered as a bad practice, it sounds like a pretty solution to the lack of __class__ macro to get the current class name. The following code works: typedef typeof(*this) CLASS; boost::bind(& CLASS :: member_function, this, _1)(my_argument); but I can't use this code in a macro which will be given as argument to register_callback. I've tried: #define HANDLER(FUN) \ boost::bind(& typeof(*this) :: member_function, this, _1); which doesn't work for reasons I don't understand. Quoting GCC documentation: A typeof-construct can be used anywhere a typedef name could be used. My compiler is GCC 4.4, and even if I'd prefer something standard, GCC-specific solutions are accepted.

  Read the article

• Named parameters lead to inferior readability?

  - by Thomas Jung

  With named parameters like def f(x : Int = 1, y : Int = 2) = x * y your parameter names become part of the interface f(x=3) Now if you want to change the parameter names locally, you are forced to perserve the public name of the parameter: def f(x : Int = 1, y : Int = 2) = { val (a,b) = (x,y) a * b } If this a real problem? Is there a syntax to support this directly? Who do other languages handle this?

  Read the article

• A question of style/readability regarding the C# "using" statement

  - by Charles

  I'd like to know your opinion on a matter of coding style that I'm on the fence about. I realize there probably isn't a definitive answer, but I'd like to see if there is a strong preference in one direction or the other. I'm going through a solution adding using statements in quite a few places. Often I will come across something like so: { log = new log(); log.SomeProperty = something; // several of these log.Connection = new OracleConnection("..."); log.InsertData(); // this is where log.Connection will be used ... // do other stuff with log, but connection won't be used again } where log.Connection is an OracleConnection, which implements IDisposable. The neatnik in me wants to change it to: { log = new log(); using (OracleConnection connection = new OracleConnection("...")) { log.SomeProperty = something; log.Connection = conn; log.InsertData(); ... } } But the lover of brevity and getting-the-job-done-slightly-faster wants to do: { log = new log(); log.SomeProperty = something; using (log.Connection = new OracleConnection("...")) log.InsertData(); ... } For some reason I feel a bit dirty doing this. Do you consider this bad or not? If you think this is bad, why? If it's good, why?

  Read the article

• Log into file or database, readability question

  - by Fungsten

  Hi there! Right now I'm logging some info of the user in my web app in a log file to observe the usage & interest for some services, but I'm interested in checking that info in a readeable way, so I'm questioning if maybe I shall save that info in a database and then retrieve it to show it in tables or whatever. It's better to log in the database for my purposes? Or logging like now I could select/order the info of the log easily?

  Read the article

• Should one use < or <= in a for loop

  - by Eugene Katz

  If you had to iterate through a loop 7 times, would you use: for (int i = 0; i < 7; i++) or: for (int i = 0; i <= 6; i++) There are two considerations: performance readability For performance I'm assuming Java or C#. Does it matter if "less than" or "less than or equal to" is used? If you have insight for a different language, please indicate which. For readability I'm assuming 0-based arrays. UPD: My mention of 0-based arrays may have confused things. I'm not talking about iterating through array elements. Just a general loop. There is a good point below about using a constant to which would explain what this magic number is. So if I had "int NUMBER_OF_THINGS = 7" then "i <= NUMBER_OF_THINGS - 1" would look weird, wouldn't it.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >