Does not Developers get confused if there are too many global variables?
-
Mohammed Hameed wrote:
Is it like they get accustomed to it and hence use it?
Or they simply don't understand how to write object oriented and/or well architected code.
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
-
It has been noticed that some developers heavily use Global variables, may be without any discomfort. Is it like they get accustomed to it and hence use it? Dont they get confused by over usage?
Understand SOLID! Believe SOLID! Try SOLID; your Code becomes Rock SOLID!!!
-
It would depend upon how the variables are named. Names like: jjxl, jixl, picxl, y, x, xy, yx, xxy would be confusing even locally scoped. However, names like: Global_Late_Fee, Global_Post_Date, & WTF_Adjustment aren't confusing.
-
It has been noticed that some developers heavily use Global variables, may be without any discomfort. Is it like they get accustomed to it and hence use it? Dont they get confused by over usage?
Understand SOLID! Believe SOLID! Try SOLID; your Code becomes Rock SOLID!!!
It's less confusing that where the developer uses classes at an absurdly granular level and/or buys into the "a method should do only one thing" nonsense. Then there's the one person who uses "var" for every definition in their C# code. The solution is to write aesthetically pleasing code will with meaningful names. In the C++ world, using static properly is a big help. (One thing that cracks me up are devs who criticize global variables and then create a singleton class full of variables. Or, worse, dozens of singleton classes chock full of variables. Speaking of singletons, I recently worked on some code where the original developer had create a factory class that produced exactly one and only one instance. Yes, it was "object" oriented, but the code would have been cleaner and made a whole lot more sense had they just written it in C.)
-
It's less confusing that where the developer uses classes at an absurdly granular level and/or buys into the "a method should do only one thing" nonsense. Then there's the one person who uses "var" for every definition in their C# code. The solution is to write aesthetically pleasing code will with meaningful names. In the C++ world, using static properly is a big help. (One thing that cracks me up are devs who criticize global variables and then create a singleton class full of variables. Or, worse, dozens of singleton classes chock full of variables. Speaking of singletons, I recently worked on some code where the original developer had create a factory class that produced exactly one and only one instance. Yes, it was "object" oriented, but the code would have been cleaner and made a whole lot more sense had they just written it in C.)
Joe Woodbury wrote:
Then there's the one person who uses "var" for every definition in their C# code.
I'm just glad
varis shorter and easier to type thandynamic.... :sigh: I'm betting that is going to bite us in a couple of years time.The universe is composed of electrons, neutrons, protons and......morons. (ThePhantomUpvoter)
-
It has been noticed that some developers heavily use Global variables, may be without any discomfort. Is it like they get accustomed to it and hence use it? Dont they get confused by over usage?
Understand SOLID! Believe SOLID! Try SOLID; your Code becomes Rock SOLID!!!
-
It's less confusing that where the developer uses classes at an absurdly granular level and/or buys into the "a method should do only one thing" nonsense. Then there's the one person who uses "var" for every definition in their C# code. The solution is to write aesthetically pleasing code will with meaningful names. In the C++ world, using static properly is a big help. (One thing that cracks me up are devs who criticize global variables and then create a singleton class full of variables. Or, worse, dozens of singleton classes chock full of variables. Speaking of singletons, I recently worked on some code where the original developer had create a factory class that produced exactly one and only one instance. Yes, it was "object" oriented, but the code would have been cleaner and made a whole lot more sense had they just written it in C.)
-
Joe Woodbury wrote:
Then there's the one person who uses "var" for every definition in their C# code.
I'm just glad
varis shorter and easier to type thandynamic.... :sigh: I'm betting that is going to bite us in a couple of years time.The universe is composed of electrons, neutrons, protons and......morons. (ThePhantomUpvoter)
Only if you use it.
“Education is not the piling on of learning, information, data, facts, skills, or abilities - that's training or instruction - but is rather making visible what is hidden as a seed”
“One of the greatest problems of our time is that many are schooled but few are educated”Sir Thomas More (1478 – 1535)
-
It has been noticed that some developers heavily use Global variables, may be without any discomfort. Is it like they get accustomed to it and hence use it? Dont they get confused by over usage?
Understand SOLID! Believe SOLID! Try SOLID; your Code becomes Rock SOLID!!!
When I started learning Java programming in 8th grade, the books only used Global variables, everywhere :doh: even for the loops... That practice continued a long time, unless I learnt what is code! Damn, the books, that teach us wrong concepts in fundamental level
-
Well, hamsters' brains aren't that big ... it's cruel enough making them write JavaScript without expecting good JavaScript.
-
Only if you use it.
“Education is not the piling on of learning, information, data, facts, skills, or abilities - that's training or instruction - but is rather making visible what is hidden as a seed”
“One of the greatest problems of our time is that many are schooled but few are educated”Sir Thomas More (1478 – 1535)
I'm not planning to, but the kind of person who habitually defines everything with var because he's too lazy to think about what his classes should be is just going to love a declaration which turns off compile time checking. He can generate four times as much (completely useless and untested) error and warning free code with dynamic in half the time... :sigh: Then it's someone elses problem to pick up the pieces when it all crashes at run time.
The universe is composed of electrons, neutrons, protons and......morons. (ThePhantomUpvoter)
-
Joe Woodbury wrote:
Then there's the one person who uses "var" for every definition in their C# code.
I'm just glad
varis shorter and easier to type thandynamic.... :sigh: I'm betting that is going to bite us in a couple of years time.The universe is composed of electrons, neutrons, protons and......morons. (ThePhantomUpvoter)
Anyone who declares anything dynamic without a damn good reason should get a slap round the head. It's loose, lazy, unclear and slow. If you know the name of methods that you want to call on an object (which you need to to make dynamic more than just object), you know enough to have it implement an interface and dispatch calls through that.
-
Anyone who declares anything dynamic without a damn good reason should get a slap round the head. It's loose, lazy, unclear and slow. If you know the name of methods that you want to call on an object (which you need to to make dynamic more than just object), you know enough to have it implement an interface and dispatch calls through that.
The only part of that about which we disagree is the punishment involved. You prefer "slap"; I prefer "baseball bat". I thought it was stupid when they introduced
var, while accepting the need when using LINQ. I have yet to see a convincing argument for the very existence ofdynamic(and yes, I do Office interop occasionally, and no, I don't usedynamicfor it)The universe is composed of electrons, neutrons, protons and......morons. (ThePhantomUpvoter)
-
Mohammed Hameed wrote:
Is it like they get accustomed to it and hence use it?
Or they simply don't understand how to write object oriented and/or well architected code.
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
This may be a stupid question, but that is the way I learn: Is there an "official" guide to the proper use of global variables, like a Microsoft guidelines document or something?
Cornelius Henning ---------------------------------------------- "There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in their home." -- Ken Olson, President of DEC, World Future Society Convention, 1977
-
I'm not planning to, but the kind of person who habitually defines everything with var because he's too lazy to think about what his classes should be is just going to love a declaration which turns off compile time checking. He can generate four times as much (completely useless and untested) error and warning free code with dynamic in half the time... :sigh: Then it's someone elses problem to pick up the pieces when it all crashes at run time.
The universe is composed of electrons, neutrons, protons and......morons. (ThePhantomUpvoter)
-
The only part of that about which we disagree is the punishment involved. You prefer "slap"; I prefer "baseball bat". I thought it was stupid when they introduced
var, while accepting the need when using LINQ. I have yet to see a convincing argument for the very existence ofdynamic(and yes, I do Office interop occasionally, and no, I don't usedynamicfor it)The universe is composed of electrons, neutrons, protons and......morons. (ThePhantomUpvoter)
-
It has been noticed that some developers heavily use Global variables, may be without any discomfort. Is it like they get accustomed to it and hence use it? Dont they get confused by over usage?
Understand SOLID! Believe SOLID! Try SOLID; your Code becomes Rock SOLID!!!
I once worked on a project with over 3000 global variables. The "team leader" did not even know what half of them were suppose to be for... He just use to add new ones!! I let you guess the quality of the project! So yes they get confused... :(
-
The only part of that about which we disagree is the punishment involved. You prefer "slap"; I prefer "baseball bat". I thought it was stupid when they introduced
var, while accepting the need when using LINQ. I have yet to see a convincing argument for the very existence ofdynamic(and yes, I do Office interop occasionally, and no, I don't usedynamicfor it)The universe is composed of electrons, neutrons, protons and......morons. (ThePhantomUpvoter)
OriginalGriff wrote:
The only part of that about which we disagree is the punishment involved.
Actually I find it often just best to kill them. Does wonders to calm the nerves.
Regards, Rob Philpott.
-
This may be a stupid question, but that is the way I learn: Is there an "official" guide to the proper use of global variables, like a Microsoft guidelines document or something?
Cornelius Henning ---------------------------------------------- "There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in their home." -- Ken Olson, President of DEC, World Future Society Convention, 1977
You're supposed to try to reduce the number of global variables that you use and only use them when necessary. The second paragraph on Wikipedia[^] gives pretty good reasons for this.
The United States invariably does the right thing, after having exhausted every other alternative. -Winston Churchill America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between. -Oscar Wilde Wow, even the French showed a little more spine than that before they got their sh*t pushed in.[^] -Colin Mullikin
-
Well, hamsters' brains aren't that big ... it's cruel enough making them write JavaScript without expecting good JavaScript.
I will put my hand up and say loudly and with some shame: Our Javascript sucks
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
