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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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.