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

Re: [XP] Writing simple software - A Challenge!

Expand Messages
  • Ron Jeffries
    ... Well, it s only an example made up on the spot and perhaps not the best one. I still think it d be interesting to compare the code, but a better example
    Message 1 of 139 , Dec 1, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      On Sunday, December 1, 2002, at 4:35:22 PM, Kyle Cordes wrote:

      > I am highly in favor of simplicity. For some reason, I don't see a
      > meaningful simplicity difference between the two approaches. If
      > anything, to me it seems a little simpler to throw an exception when
      > something goes wrong, than to come up with a way to succeed anyway then
      > deal with the consequences later in the code up a few calls.

      Well, it's only an example made up on the spot and perhaps not the
      best one. I still think it'd be interesting to compare the code, but a
      better example would be better.

      > This is probably deeply intertwined with how different languages handle
      > exception handling, as I was saying above. In a language that makes it
      > really easy to do exception-based error handling, creating methods which
      > you expect to except is pretty simply; in languages without that,
      > creating methods that are defined such that they always succeed could be
      > a lot simpler.

      Yes but /using/ methods that hurl (I'm trying to get that word into
      the industry vocabulary) is not pretty simple. It tends to multiply
      the code volume and its nesting levels.

      Ron Jeffries
      www.XProgramming.com
      Sorry about your cow ... I didn't know she was sacred.
    • J. B. Rainsberger
      So said ericheikkila on 12/4/2002 -------------------- ... Often, i means something. Say what you mean; mean what you say. :) J. B. Rainsberger,
      Message 139 of 139 , Dec 7, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        So said ericheikkila on 12/4/2002 --------------------

        >Single letter variables drive me nuts. ;)
        >I use 'index' instead of 'i' (or loop, or maybe count, depending on
        >the context).
        >As far as abbreviations go...if the entire team agrees, fine.
        >If someone on the team doesn't know that itr is the same as iterator,
        >just change it to iterator.
        >
        >Usually, I'll not abbrev ;)

        Often, "i" means something. Say what you mean; mean what you say. :)

        J. B. Rainsberger,
        President, Diaspar Software Services
        Let's write software that people understand.
        http://www.diasparsoftware.com/
        telephone: +1 416 791-8603
        All correspondence (c) 2002 Diaspar Software Services.
        If you want to use it, just ask; don't steal.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.