What are your code pet-peeves?
-
You would call it wrong. One of the skills that will take a developer far is the ability to see past little things like this. Keep in mind C# is not the only language and Java in particular is notorious for the other style. It is probably my fault as I am growing cynical in my old age. I am just tired of seeing people call themselves Senior Developers who barely even know one language and one trait that is systematic of these people is going ballistic over something that has no rational basis in the quality of code. Don't mature into that guy!
Need a C# Consultant? I'm available.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know. -- Ernest Hemingwayi get that :) yes one day ill have to work on someone else's code one day but the project im working on now was designed and started by me so the dev's working on it will do it my way :-D
Ennis Ray Lynch, Jr. wrote:
tired of seeing people call themselves Senior Developers
i didnt, not that i know of anyway... and i clam to be a junior dev right in my sig :)
Harvey Saayman - South Africa Junior Developer .Net, C#, SQL
you.suck = (you.passion != Programming) -
For the property, I would accept the get and set on each own line, if the property setter/getter was only 1 line long. Eg:
public bool Selected
{
get {return selected;}
set {selected = value;}
}xacc.ide - now with TabsToSpaces support
IronScheme - 1.0 alpha 4a out now (29 May 2008) -
Not doing so makes reflection a PITA. If MS would have made no distinction between a field and a property maybe I would agree. Of course, I don't like properties, instead I prefer set and get methods. Interesting that the CLR doesn't support properties. (I am going to stop there so others can stick their foot in their mouth when arguing against me)
Need a C# Consultant? I'm available.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know. -- Ernest HemingwayEnnis Ray Lynch, Jr. wrote:
Not doing so makes reflection a PITA.
Yup, but reflection is normally an indication that something's broken in your design.
Ennis Ray Lynch, Jr. wrote:
Interesting that the CLR doesn't support properties.
Of course it does - and they happen to be methods called get_ and set_ .... ;)
Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before.
-
i get that :) yes one day ill have to work on someone else's code one day but the project im working on now was designed and started by me so the dev's working on it will do it my way :-D
Ennis Ray Lynch, Jr. wrote:
tired of seeing people call themselves Senior Developers
i didnt, not that i know of anyway... and i clam to be a junior dev right in my sig :)
Harvey Saayman - South Africa Junior Developer .Net, C#, SQL
you.suck = (you.passion != Programming)Yeah I know, that is why I put my last sentence, don't be that guy :p
Need a C# Consultant? I'm available.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know. -- Ernest Hemingway -
Ennis Ray Lynch, Jr. wrote:
Not doing so makes reflection a PITA.
Yup, but reflection is normally an indication that something's broken in your design.
Ennis Ray Lynch, Jr. wrote:
Interesting that the CLR doesn't support properties.
Of course it does - and they happen to be methods called get_ and set_ .... ;)
Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before.
I agree 100% re using reflection indicates a poor design choice, it does make nice hack when they lead designer is himself a hack.
Need a C# Consultant? I'm available.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know. -- Ernest Hemingway -
Same here, unless there's specific logic involved. Automatic properties save some coding. ;)
It's not about saving keystrokes, it's about reducing the chance for an unexpectedly recursive property.
-
Actually - there's another pet peeve of mine. People using properties when a field would suffice. If the object is serializable then, fine, make it a property otherwise do you really need to have a property that does nothing other than assign a value?
Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before.
One should always use custom serialization anyway.
-
Than logic. Many of your wrongs are perfectly acceptable. In fact I author all of my code with squirlies on the same line as a construct because I prefer that style ... and it is a style issue not a right or wrong. Developers, such as yourself, who have pet peeves that have nothing to do with bad programming waste a lot of code reviews that could be better spent. Any developer worth his or her salt should be able to read any consistently written code without any difficulty.
Need a C# Consultant? I'm available.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know. -- Ernest HemingwayEnnis Ray Lynch, Jr. wrote:
squirlies on the same line
Plus, Visual Studio can modify it to the user's preference.
-
agreed! its actually weird how furious i get for something so silly...
Harvey Saayman - South Africa Junior Developer .Net, C#, SQL
you.suck = (you.passion != Programming)Ease off on the coffee? :-D
-
It's not about saving keystrokes, it's about reducing the chance for an unexpectedly recursive property.
PIEBALDconsult wrote:
It's not about saving keystrokes, it's about reducing the chance for an unexpectedly recursive property.
Definitely about keystrokes for me, I never wrote a recursive property, maybe because I have different naming conventions for private fields.