Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [extremeperl] Re: I almost had a heart attack: you call that refactoring???

Expand Messages
  • Tom Vilot
    ... Oh, I don t know ... NEVER use Windows isn t dogmatic. It s obvious.
    Message 1 of 17 , Apr 2, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      > And a little point that I like to toss out that (if I may be less than
      > humble) more people should pay attention to: when someone uses
      > all-encompassing terms like "never" and "always", look for a logical
      > flaw. There's often one lurking somewhere nearby. Those terms smack
      > of dogmatism and dogmatism means someone's stopped thinking about
      > something (though it doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong.)


      <begin heavy sarcasm>
      Oh, I don't know ...

      NEVER use Windows isn't dogmatic. It's obvious.

      </end heavy sarcasm.

      But seriously, your point is well taken.
    • Johan Lindstr´┐Żm
      ... If it s identical now but represents different things, doesn t that smell of badly chosen names for those things? If so, perhaps some things should be
      Message 2 of 17 , Apr 2, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        At 19:46 2005-04-02, Curtis Poe wrote:
        >There's also a rather subtle problem that exists when you have code
        >that is identical but represents different rules that may diverge in
        >the future. My caffeine-deprived brain can't think of an example right
        >now,

        If it's identical now but represents different things, doesn't that smell
        of badly chosen names for those things? If so, perhaps some things should
        be renamed to better reflect "what they are"? That would expose the
        duplication and you could refactor it properly.


        /J
      • Jim Keenan
        ... the ... as ... But if you double-check my original posting to this thread, you will see that I did not call for an immutable rule. I described instead
        Message 3 of 17 , Apr 2, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In extremeperl@yahoogroups.com, Chris Winters <chris@c...> wrote:
          > Sounds like a call to delurk. I agree with Rob and Rob but more for
          the
          > reason that having an immutable rule like "the second time you
          > encounter functionality you MUST put it in one place" doesn't work
          as
          > well as ....

          But if you double-check my original posting to this thread, you will
          see that I did not call for "an immutable rule." I described instead
          "[m]y own personal rule of thumb".

          From the American Heritage Dictionary via dictionary.com: "Rule of
          thumb": "A useful principle having wide application but not intended
          to be strictly accurate or reliable in every situation."

          jimk
        • Chris Winters
          ... I was reacting more to Terrence s shock and disbelief that copy-and-paste wasn t entirely evil. Didn t mean to misattribute. Chris -- Chris Winters
          Message 4 of 17 , Apr 2, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            On Apr 2, 2005, at 3:16 PM, Jim Keenan wrote:
            > But if you double-check my original posting to this thread, you will
            > see that I did not call for "an immutable rule." I described instead
            > "[m]y own personal rule of thumb".
            >
            > From the American Heritage Dictionary via dictionary.com: "Rule of
            > thumb": "A useful principle having wide application but not intended
            > to be strictly accurate or reliable in every situation."

            I was reacting more to Terrence's shock and disbelief that
            copy-and-paste wasn't entirely evil. Didn't mean to misattribute.

            Chris

            --
            Chris Winters
            Creating enterprise-capable snack systems since 1988
          • Rob Kinyon
            ... I think that this applies more to languages like C or Java where runtime function generation isn t possible. In Perl, Javascript, and other functional-like
            Message 5 of 17 , Apr 3, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              > There's also a rather subtle problem that exists when you have code
              > that is identical but represents different rules that may diverge in
              > the future. My caffeine-deprived brain can't think of an example right
              > now,

              I think that this applies more to languages like C or Java where
              runtime function generation isn't possible. In Perl, Javascript, and
              other functional-like languages where eval and closures exist, being
              able to abstract a function's structure means that refactoring can be
              done based on both identical rules and identical structure, but
              different rules. So, I'm giong to disagree with this here, Ovid.

              But, because you have this power, it is important to use it wisely.
              So, in languages where eval and closures exist, I would argue that you
              -definitely- have to wait until the third copy before refactoring.

              Rob
            • Adrian Howard
              ... I ll make it 7 and 4 since I m not dogmatic about either. I probably lean towards the refactor-at-first-sign-of-duplication camp. However there are
              Message 6 of 17 , Apr 7, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                On 2 Apr 2005, at 18:46, Curtis Poe wrote:

                >
                > On Apr 2, 2005, at 9:34 AM, Tom Vilot wrote:
                >
                >>> Against: 2 (Jim, Terrence)
                >>> For: 4 (Rob, Rob, Chris, Johan)
                >>
                >> five, actually. Count me in the 'for' list.
                >
                > May as well make it six. I used to think the "never duplicate" rule
                > was good and sometimes the second time I do something I refactor on the
                > spot, but I've been bitten too many times by a quick refactoring only
                > to realize I didn't have a full grasp of what needed to be refactored.
                > 3 or more times is a good rule of thumb.

                I'll make it 7 and 4 since I'm not dogmatic about either. I probably
                lean towards the refactor-at-first-sign-of-duplication camp. However
                there are certainly plenty of times where my small brain has no idea
                the direction the code is going so I let the code tell me what it wants
                to do by waiting for a few more examples.

                Adrian
              • Adrian Howard
                On 7 Apr 2005, at 08:36, Adrian Howard wrote: [snip] ... [snip] And the quote of the day site gave me this today. Never express yourself more clearly than you
                Message 7 of 17 , Apr 7, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  On 7 Apr 2005, at 08:36, Adrian Howard wrote:
                  [snip]
                  > However
                  > there are certainly plenty of times where my small brain has no idea
                  > the direction the code is going so I let the code tell me what it wants
                  > to do by waiting for a few more examples.
                  [snip]

                  And the quote of the day site gave me this today.

                  Never express yourself more clearly than you are able to think.
                  - Niels Bohr (1885 - 1962)

                  :-)

                  Adrian
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.