Programming's Foul Language
-
Kidding ? :omg: Coding without it is like using FORTRAN: do not catch anything, or enclose all code in try/catch, just in case ;P
-
What programming terms would you consider equivalent to foul language? For example: Legacy Code
Todd Smith
-
Drop the semi-colon? And be forced _ to resort to VB's _ horrible style of _ line continuations!?!? No thanks. Though the case sensitivity... I wouldn't have to deal with code where people name the private variables the same as the exposed properties, with just case differences... Or better yet, gems like:
int num = Num + NUM;
Thankfully, I've never actually seen a line that bad, but imagine a program written like that... There's something you can't do in VB.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Developer, Author (Guardians of Xen)
GOD, I FUC^N HATE THAT and they do it in textbooks, tutorials, samples --- yeah that's right Microsoft I'm talking to you.... I propose anyone caught doing this gets paper cuts on the tips of all of their digits... that will teach them. (try typing now you sick B@$$+@rd$ I slept last night so i feel good today, try me again in 24 hours I won't be so plucky.
-
Microsoft
-
I agree with that, despite knowing that at Assembly level, that's exactly what your code will do.
-
goto can actually be useful (if used extremely sparingly - so sparingly that I haven't used it in over 10 years!) One example where goto is very helpful is in programming an efficient state-machine. Oh, I know you can do it without gotos by using functions and/or block escapes, but the goto is much more efficient -- and, in the case of a state-machine, actually HELPS understanding of what is going on.... FWIW (getting ready for all the thumbs-down).
-
goto can actually be useful (if used extremely sparingly - so sparingly that I haven't used it in over 10 years!) One example where goto is very helpful is in programming an efficient state-machine. Oh, I know you can do it without gotos by using functions and/or block escapes, but the goto is much more efficient -- and, in the case of a state-machine, actually HELPS understanding of what is going on.... FWIW (getting ready for all the thumbs-down).
Owen37 wrote:
if used extremely sparingly - so sparingly that I haven't used it in over 10 years!)
I guess I'm not saying that they can NEVER be useful, it's just that whenever I've seen it used abused, it had no business in the code and it's always at least a red flag.
Owen37 wrote:
(getting ready for all the thumbs-down).
Not from me. :)
-
.... right up until something changes in the library and it can throw a new exception at which point the library author has to either break every single app that consumes it, cast the new exception into a different type defeating the purpose of typed exceptions in the first place, or just have every method throw exception from the start defeating the purpose of checked exceptions from the start. X|
The European Way of War: Blow your own continent up. The American Way of War: Go over and help them.
Valid point, but if your library is very volatile, you can wrap all exceptions that happen in your method into a YourCustomException and throw the wrapper instance.
Cheers, Vikram. (Proud to have finally cracked a CCC!)
-
goto can actually be useful (if used extremely sparingly - so sparingly that I haven't used it in over 10 years!) One example where goto is very helpful is in programming an efficient state-machine. Oh, I know you can do it without gotos by using functions and/or block escapes, but the goto is much more efficient -- and, in the case of a state-machine, actually HELPS understanding of what is going on.... FWIW (getting ready for all the thumbs-down).
-
How is using
gotobetter than aswitchstatement in awhile(true)loop?The European Way of War: Blow your own continent up. The American Way of War: Go over and help them.
-
Owen37 wrote:
if used extremely sparingly - so sparingly that I haven't used it in over 10 years!)
I guess I'm not saying that they can NEVER be useful, it's just that whenever I've seen it used abused, it had no business in the code and it's always at least a red flag.
Owen37 wrote:
(getting ready for all the thumbs-down).
Not from me. :)
jeron1 wrote:
I guess I'm not saying that they can NEVER be useful, it's just that whenever I've seen it used abused, it had no business in the code and it's always at least a red flag.
Oh yeah! ALWAYS a RED FLAG! Even when I did have to use it (in the large state-machine) I felt dirty and wanted to run home and take a shower every time I looked at it. After numerous code reviews (some by the VP of development), it held up as the most efficient way to handle the data stream. And, it's in the comments/documentation for the code.
-
You do realize you can mark up which exceptions are thrown in XML comments? I forget if that junk shows up in the intellisense though...
Yes, it does.
-
goto can actually be useful (if used extremely sparingly - so sparingly that I haven't used it in over 10 years!) One example where goto is very helpful is in programming an efficient state-machine. Oh, I know you can do it without gotos by using functions and/or block escapes, but the goto is much more efficient -- and, in the case of a state-machine, actually HELPS understanding of what is going on.... FWIW (getting ready for all the thumbs-down).
One defense for the goto I've heard is from people whose programming policies require that functions have a single exit point. Aiming for a single Exit Sub/Function/Return point without goto can easily make for some complex and hard to maintain control paths, often with multiple levels of nested if/then blocks.
-
Prolific maybe, but between them and partial classes, I get quite extended.
Oh, yeah, I forgot about
partialwhen I wrote that, but then I usepartialeven when I don't need it. I actually feel that classes should bepartialby default and that there should be no keyword for it. Trying to compile an actualpartialclass with C# 1.0 will break even if there is no keyword, so I don't see the need. And I think the word I really wanted was "profligate"; I'm not sure which word works best in the context. -
Oh, yeah, I forgot about
partialwhen I wrote that, but then I usepartialeven when I don't need it. I actually feel that classes should bepartialby default and that there should be no keyword for it. Trying to compile an actualpartialclass with C# 1.0 will break even if there is no keyword, so I don't see the need. And I think the word I really wanted was "profligate"; I'm not sure which word works best in the context.I like to know when I'm partial to something.
-
I like to know when I'm partial to something.
I'm not partial to needless keywords and syntax changes.
-
Fabio Franco wrote:
knowing that at Assembly level, that's exactly what your code will do.
True, I have programmed in both languages and for some reason it seems natural (maybe because there's no choice?) in assembler and completely out of place in C++.
jeron1 wrote:
it seems natural (maybe because there's no choice?)
Yep, there is no choice. The program counter (PC) points which statement will execute next. The processor looks that up in the memory and if nothing is done, it will simply execute the next item in the stack. So in order to perform conditional tasks (if) or loops (for/while) the processor understands the MOV command which is exactly what the "goto" command does. All your ifs, whiles and fors become nothing when compiled to native machine language. They all become "goto's". Thank God nowadays we are not required to go assembly in most cases, things can get ugly. Cheers Fábio
-
Valid point, but if your library is very volatile, you can wrap all exceptions that happen in your method into a YourCustomException and throw the wrapper instance.
Cheers, Vikram. (Proud to have finally cracked a CCC!)
throws Exception,throws MyCustomExceptionWhichWrapsEverything, and lack of a throws statement; are equally useless at providing meaningful information to the consumer.The European Way of War: Blow your own continent up. The American Way of War: Go over and help them.
-
Oh, yeah, I forgot about
partialwhen I wrote that, but then I usepartialeven when I don't need it. I actually feel that classes should bepartialby default and that there should be no keyword for it. Trying to compile an actualpartialclass with C# 1.0 will break even if there is no keyword, so I don't see the need. And I think the word I really wanted was "profligate"; I'm not sure which word works best in the context.Unless you're suggesting replacing it with a new keyword eg
singlefilethat does the opposite I'm strongly opposed because it means I don't have any mandatory information about if a class is fully contained in a single file or if it's got implementation spread among several. If you are suggestingsinglefileinstead ofpartialthen I disagree because you're changing the implicit behavior of legacy code. The only change I'd make would be to add a warning if there was *not* a second instance of a partial class eg if you ooopsed and only renamed/renamespaced the class in one of the files instead of all of them.The European Way of War: Blow your own continent up. The American Way of War: Go over and help them.
-
Unless you're suggesting replacing it with a new keyword eg
singlefilethat does the opposite I'm strongly opposed because it means I don't have any mandatory information about if a class is fully contained in a single file or if it's got implementation spread among several. If you are suggestingsinglefileinstead ofpartialthen I disagree because you're changing the implicit behavior of legacy code. The only change I'd make would be to add a warning if there was *not* a second instance of a partial class eg if you ooopsed and only renamed/renamespaced the class in one of the files instead of all of them.The European Way of War: Blow your own continent up. The American Way of War: Go over and help them.
dan neely wrote:
a new keyword eg singlefile
No.
dan neely wrote:
if a class is fully contained in a single file or if it's got implementation spread among several
I don't need that information. And it doesn't tell you which other files anyway so I don't see the benefit. The main thing is, I may post some code here and someone may want to add something to it for their own purposes. If I include partial (even though my code doesn't need it), they don't have to touch my file. If I leave off partial, they have to add it even though they're using partial in an effort to not alter my file. Partial classes enable such easy additions to code, but the
partialkeyword hinders that ease. All classes should be partial without needing a new keyword.