What makes code good?
-
Josh Smith wrote:
Too many comments make it difficult to read the code, too few comments force you to read code
This is true of all parts that you listed. Consistency is nice, but when consistant naming conventions use: int Volume_of_Fuel_for_Onboard_Motor_Sensor_of_Aircraft_Taco_Wing_from_Hanger15=0; too much of anything is a bad thing. Too much emphasis on design and future upgradeability, with little emphasis on functionality is bad, so can the reverse. Too much detail, or not enough detail in variables or comments each will be a bad thing. So my theory on good code can be broken down into one word: Balance. Get the point across, be succinct, not wordy, but be accurate and very clear about what is what. Comments, or code. Styles should be rapidly readable to much elegance can crowd the screen (I have heard requests for 4 spaces before and after {} which means 8 spaces for every open/close). Too much freedom of saying, "they just buy bigger hardware if it isn't fast enough" or too much focus on squeezing the last cpu cycle out of a CISC turnip processor. Too much of anything can be bad. well, except pay, they are welcome to pay me more to test that theory anytime.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
El Corazon wrote:
Balance.
Wish there was a way to vote that a 10 - in all things, Balance! :)
¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF! VCF Blog
-
What do you think makes some code better than other code? I don't necessarily mean "good" in the sense that it is bug-free, that's a pipe dream. What are the most important things to you when working with code? I think the following attributes are always found in code I consider to be good: 1) Consistency - The coding styles, naming conventions, usage of patterns, etc. are adhered to throughout the codebase. If your team prefixes private fields with an underscore, all private fields should start with "_". 2) Thoughtful naming - The names of things should accurately convey their purpose. I find that some of the best programmers I know dwell on a method name, or class name, or field name for a long time if necessary. 3) Smart comments - Too many comments make it difficult to read the code, too few comments force you to read code which could easily be summarized in one sentence. I think that all non-private members of a type should be commented, all types should have a comment explaining their purpose, and any tricky/hacky/weird code should be verbosely commented. What about you?
:josh: My WPF Blog[^] Without a strive for perfection I would be terribly bored.
Good code is that which you don't mind looking through when you are tired/hungover/grumpy - i.e. easily read and understood.
'--8<------------------------ Ex Datis: Duncan Jones Merrion Computing Ltd
-
Not at all - I simply use my amazing mentat training and adjust the building's geometry at the quantum level to suit my needs.
¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF! VCF Blog
Jim Crafton wrote:
I simply use my amazing mentat training
Perhaps you need some more "mentat" training Your Majesty. :laugh:
:josh: My WPF Blog[^] Without a strive for perfection I would be terribly bored.
-
What do you think makes some code better than other code? I don't necessarily mean "good" in the sense that it is bug-free, that's a pipe dream. What are the most important things to you when working with code? I think the following attributes are always found in code I consider to be good: 1) Consistency - The coding styles, naming conventions, usage of patterns, etc. are adhered to throughout the codebase. If your team prefixes private fields with an underscore, all private fields should start with "_". 2) Thoughtful naming - The names of things should accurately convey their purpose. I find that some of the best programmers I know dwell on a method name, or class name, or field name for a long time if necessary. 3) Smart comments - Too many comments make it difficult to read the code, too few comments force you to read code which could easily be summarized in one sentence. I think that all non-private members of a type should be commented, all types should have a comment explaining their purpose, and any tricky/hacky/weird code should be verbosely commented. What about you?
:josh: My WPF Blog[^] Without a strive for perfection I would be terribly bored.
Keep it simple. Some programmers like to write a hundred lines of code because it makes them feel like a programmer. Fuck that, write it in 20 because YOU ARE a programmer. Write everything out on paper before you even touch the keyboard...think it through. Take your time. Haste does make waste...and stinky waste it is.
[ Don't do today what can be done tomorrow!! ;) ]
-
Jim Crafton wrote:
If I write it, it's good.
You must have difficultly getting into buildings, considering that your ego is too big to fit through a door! ;P
:josh: My WPF Blog[^] Without a strive for perfection I would be terribly bored.
-
Josh Smith wrote:
You must have difficultly getting into buildings, considering that your ego is too big to fit through a door!
And his ass.
INITCOMMONCONTROLSEX wrote:
And his ass.
Speaking of asses...
:josh: My WPF Blog[^] Without a strive for perfection I would be terribly bored.
-
Marc Clifton wrote:
The rest is just style, common sense, and coding rules.
You know what they say about common sense, right... :)
:josh: My WPF Blog[^] Without a strive for perfection I would be terribly bored.
Josh Smith wrote:
You know what they say about common sense, right...
It's incredibly common and everyone has it? Yes, we know already!!! :-D :-D :-D
-
Marc Clifton wrote:
The rest is just style, common sense, and coding rules.
You know what they say about common sense, right... :)
:josh: My WPF Blog[^] Without a strive for perfection I would be terribly bored.
Josh Smith wrote:
You know what they say about common sense, right...
Yeah, if cents were common I'd be a rich man. :) Marc
-
#1. Maintainability #2. Reusability #3. Extensibility
Best wishes, Hans
[CodeProject Forum Guidelines] [How To Ask A Question] [My Articles]
I agree 100% Isn't that the "Three Cs of Good Programming" ? C was as good a letter as any. MArk
Mark Salsbery Microsoft MVP - Visual C++ :java:
-
A good design goes a long way toward making good code. The rest is just style, common sense, and coding rules. [edit] And if you continue the analogy, a good set of requirements makes for good design, and a good set of requirements comes from a good relationship with the client. Therefore, good code starts with a good client. [edit] Marc
Marc Clifton wrote:
The rest is just style, common sense
I would associate these two with aesthetics. And I would then say that many people either choose not to have any or just willfully ignore it. And their code suffers accordingly.
¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF! VCF Blog
-
Jim Crafton wrote:
I simply use my amazing mentat training
Perhaps you need some more "mentat" training Your Majesty. :laugh:
:josh: My WPF Blog[^] Without a strive for perfection I would be terribly bored.
Hey now! Watch that tone - let's have some proper respect here! :)
¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF! VCF Blog
-
Josh Smith wrote:
Too many comments make it difficult to read the code, too few comments force you to read code
This is true of all parts that you listed. Consistency is nice, but when consistant naming conventions use: int Volume_of_Fuel_for_Onboard_Motor_Sensor_of_Aircraft_Taco_Wing_from_Hanger15=0; too much of anything is a bad thing. Too much emphasis on design and future upgradeability, with little emphasis on functionality is bad, so can the reverse. Too much detail, or not enough detail in variables or comments each will be a bad thing. So my theory on good code can be broken down into one word: Balance. Get the point across, be succinct, not wordy, but be accurate and very clear about what is what. Comments, or code. Styles should be rapidly readable to much elegance can crowd the screen (I have heard requests for 4 spaces before and after {} which means 8 spaces for every open/close). Too much freedom of saying, "they just buy bigger hardware if it isn't fast enough" or too much focus on squeezing the last cpu cycle out of a CISC turnip processor. Too much of anything can be bad. well, except pay, they are welcome to pay me more to test that theory anytime.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
A field declaration like that would also demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of OO and arrays I think! :-D
I'm largely language agnostic
After a while they all bug me :doh:
-
What do you think makes some code better than other code? I don't necessarily mean "good" in the sense that it is bug-free, that's a pipe dream. What are the most important things to you when working with code? I think the following attributes are always found in code I consider to be good: 1) Consistency - The coding styles, naming conventions, usage of patterns, etc. are adhered to throughout the codebase. If your team prefixes private fields with an underscore, all private fields should start with "_". 2) Thoughtful naming - The names of things should accurately convey their purpose. I find that some of the best programmers I know dwell on a method name, or class name, or field name for a long time if necessary. 3) Smart comments - Too many comments make it difficult to read the code, too few comments force you to read code which could easily be summarized in one sentence. I think that all non-private members of a type should be commented, all types should have a comment explaining their purpose, and any tricky/hacky/weird code should be verbosely commented. What about you?
:josh: My WPF Blog[^] Without a strive for perfection I would be terribly bored.
Josh Smith wrote:
What makes code good?
Code is good when it is: 1) Robust. 2) Efficient (when it matters, of course). 3) Easy to understand. 4) Easy to modify.
-
A field declaration like that would also demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of OO and arrays I think! :-D
I'm largely language agnostic
After a while they all bug me :doh:
MidwestLimey wrote:
A field declaration like that would also demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of OO and arrays I think!
well, the same thing can happen in OO use as well. full->indirection->can->go->to->far->in->many->cases->as->well->as->declaritive->variables you name your worst coding nightmare, I have seen it. :)
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
What do you think makes some code better than other code? I don't necessarily mean "good" in the sense that it is bug-free, that's a pipe dream. What are the most important things to you when working with code? I think the following attributes are always found in code I consider to be good: 1) Consistency - The coding styles, naming conventions, usage of patterns, etc. are adhered to throughout the codebase. If your team prefixes private fields with an underscore, all private fields should start with "_". 2) Thoughtful naming - The names of things should accurately convey their purpose. I find that some of the best programmers I know dwell on a method name, or class name, or field name for a long time if necessary. 3) Smart comments - Too many comments make it difficult to read the code, too few comments force you to read code which could easily be summarized in one sentence. I think that all non-private members of a type should be commented, all types should have a comment explaining their purpose, and any tricky/hacky/weird code should be verbosely commented. What about you?
:josh: My WPF Blog[^] Without a strive for perfection I would be terribly bored.
-
Currently, I am reading this book: Beautiful Code[^]. I must say that content wise it is one of the best books I have read. I will rank it high up with books: Code Complete, Design Patterns and Refactoring.
Josh Smith wrote:
Thoughtful naming
Agreed! To me intent code should be just be obvious by reading it. If the code adheres to well known patterns things are a lot easier.
Josh Smith wrote:
I think that all non-private members of a type should be commented
The tricky parts always should have comments. But I hate comment clutter. I personally hate XML comments (javadoc is a little better) and I wish if there was an alternative. When you publish an API all public members should be documented but I necessarily don't agree that they should have comments on top of them. For example, I hate comments likes these if they appear everywhere and just convey the obvious. However, for something not very obvious things have to be commented.
public class Employee
{
///
/// Gets or sets the employee name
///
public string Name
{
get {return this.name; }
set { this.name = value; }
}///
/// Call this method to increase the salary of the employee
///
public void IncreaseSalary(double salary)
{
....
}}
Another thing issue I have seen is sometimes you may use a well known design pattern and the meaning may not be obvious to some programmers but programmers who have read the design patterns book may immediately recognize the pattern and understand how the code works. In such a case I think I will prefer programmer education rather than cluttering the code.
Co-Author ASP.NET AJAX in Action
Rama Krishna Vavilala wrote:
But I hate comment clutter.
I agree. Years ago in a previous career, I worked with a wise, old man who taught me what has become a valuable lesson: It is better to smoke no cigar than a bad cigar. I have adapted this to many different situations. It is better to write no comment than a bad comment. Like your examples of comments that add no value to the code.
Rama Krishna Vavilala wrote:
In such a case I think I will prefer programmer education rather than cluttering the code.
Agree with this, also. It might be nice to include a reference to the book in case like this. BDF
-
Josh Smith wrote:
Too many comments make it difficult to read the code, too few comments force you to read code
This is true of all parts that you listed. Consistency is nice, but when consistant naming conventions use: int Volume_of_Fuel_for_Onboard_Motor_Sensor_of_Aircraft_Taco_Wing_from_Hanger15=0; too much of anything is a bad thing. Too much emphasis on design and future upgradeability, with little emphasis on functionality is bad, so can the reverse. Too much detail, or not enough detail in variables or comments each will be a bad thing. So my theory on good code can be broken down into one word: Balance. Get the point across, be succinct, not wordy, but be accurate and very clear about what is what. Comments, or code. Styles should be rapidly readable to much elegance can crowd the screen (I have heard requests for 4 spaces before and after {} which means 8 spaces for every open/close). Too much freedom of saying, "they just buy bigger hardware if it isn't fast enough" or too much focus on squeezing the last cpu cycle out of a CISC turnip processor. Too much of anything can be bad. well, except pay, they are welcome to pay me more to test that theory anytime.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
El Corazon wrote:
int Volume_of_Fuel_for_Onboard_Motor_Sensor_of_Aircraft_Taco_Wing_from_Hanger15=0;
Hey its an aircraft... you might think about copy and pasting that name a few times to make sure its redendent enough not to make a mistake :)
-
El Corazon wrote:
int Volume_of_Fuel_for_Onboard_Motor_Sensor_of_Aircraft_Taco_Wing_from_Hanger15=0;
Hey its an aircraft... you might think about copy and pasting that name a few times to make sure its redendent enough not to make a mistake :)
StevenWalsh wrote:
you might think about copy and pasting that name a few times to make sure its redendent enough not to make a mistake
naw, just copy and paste the entire routine for filling one tank into another routine to fill the other tank, or better yet, copy and past the whole thing into main!
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
Hey now! Watch that tone - let's have some proper respect here! :)
¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF! VCF Blog
Ego sum rex VCF et super grammaticam ;) (that is, you are the king of VCF, and are above grammar)
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: Minnesota Bridge Collapses The apostle Paul, modernly speaking: Epistles of Paul Judah Himango
-
Ego sum rex VCF et super grammaticam ;) (that is, you are the king of VCF, and are above grammar)
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: Minnesota Bridge Collapses The apostle Paul, modernly speaking: Epistles of Paul Judah Himango
Bah humbug! Grammar schmammar! Next yu'll kumplane abowt my speling!
¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF! VCF Blog