Is this an acceptable practice?
-
It is only one line of code, broken into multiple lines via the _ character.
<System.Runtime.Serialization.DataMember>
Private mLastUpdated As DateTime, mLastUpdatedBy As String, mClearanceRequired As Int64, mClearanceIsRequired As BooleanSo what? It seems like you're doing this and your looking for absolution from the community. Again, it's a matter of opinion and in a real environment with coding standards, what you've done may be outlawed.
A guide to posting questions on CodeProject
How to debug small programs
Dave Kreskowiak -
<System.Runtime.Serialization.DataMember>
Private mLastUpdated As DateTime, _
mLastUpdatedBy As String, _
mClearanceRequired As Int64, _
mClearanceIsRequired As BooleanVisual basic code; class members for serialization - declaring a group of variables as data members.
I don't see any problem with it, as a matter of fact it actually reminds me of C++ member declaration.
To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems - Homer Simpson ---- Our heads are round so our thoughts can change direction - Francis Picabia
-
<System.Runtime.Serialization.DataMember>
Private mLastUpdated As DateTime, _
mLastUpdatedBy As String, _
mClearanceRequired As Int64, _
mClearanceIsRequired As BooleanVisual basic code; class members for serialization - declaring a group of variables as data members.
"It is a vessel of fertilizer, and none may abide its strength."
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason? Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful? --Zachris Topelius Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies. -- Sarah Hoyt
-
<System.Runtime.Serialization.DataMember>
Private mLastUpdated As DateTime, _
mLastUpdatedBy As String, _
mClearanceRequired As Int64, _
mClearanceIsRequired As BooleanVisual basic code; class members for serialization - declaring a group of variables as data members.
At a first glance, I find this confusing. In particular because the DataMember attribute actually accepts a constructor parameter. - So if I set the constructor parameter, which field does it apply to? - Likewise, if you want to switch out serializers and use something like Protocol Buffers this syntax simply won't translate. You would need to break out each one as the constructor is required. - On top of this all, there's a mixing of types. I'm not a big fan of the "multi-declaration" syntax, especially when it doesn't save any actual lines like this example. But there are some cases where it is useful. That stated, if you're mixing types on the "multi-declarations", it's time split them out. I wouldn't call this "unacceptable" practice, especially in the context of firing someone over this. I would however call this "non-standard" and "confusing" and ask that it be changed.
-
Its valid code. Coding practices is the topic.
Colborne_Greg wrote:
Coding practices is the topic
Coding practices are a form of communication to the next developer to assist them in their understanding of the code. There are no absolutes -- a syntax acceptable to one group might not be acceptable to another group. In general though, use of an oddball syntax in one place in the code is a poor practice. So, the only realistic answer to your question is "it depends". It depends on whether that's the common syntax used throughout the rest of the code, or an oddball one.
Colborne_Greg wrote:
Its valid code
I have three words by way of countering this line of thought: Obfuscated C Contest.
We can program with only 1's, but if all you've got are zeros, you've got nothing.
-
Colborne_Greg wrote:
Coding practices is the topic
Coding practices are a form of communication to the next developer to assist them in their understanding of the code. There are no absolutes -- a syntax acceptable to one group might not be acceptable to another group. In general though, use of an oddball syntax in one place in the code is a poor practice. So, the only realistic answer to your question is "it depends". It depends on whether that's the common syntax used throughout the rest of the code, or an oddball one.
Colborne_Greg wrote:
Its valid code
I have three words by way of countering this line of thought: Obfuscated C Contest.
We can program with only 1's, but if all you've got are zeros, you've got nothing.
I keep a common structure, thank you for a straight answer.
-
At a first glance, I find this confusing. In particular because the DataMember attribute actually accepts a constructor parameter. - So if I set the constructor parameter, which field does it apply to? - Likewise, if you want to switch out serializers and use something like Protocol Buffers this syntax simply won't translate. You would need to break out each one as the constructor is required. - On top of this all, there's a mixing of types. I'm not a big fan of the "multi-declaration" syntax, especially when it doesn't save any actual lines like this example. But there are some cases where it is useful. That stated, if you're mixing types on the "multi-declarations", it's time split them out. I wouldn't call this "unacceptable" practice, especially in the context of firing someone over this. I would however call this "non-standard" and "confusing" and ask that it be changed.
This is what it looked like before
<System.Runtime.Serialization.DataMember>
Private mLastUpdated As DateTime<System.Runtime.Serialization.DataMember> Private mLastUpdatedBy As String <System.Runtime.Serialization.DataMember> Private mClearanceRequired As Int64 <System.Runtime.Serialization.DataMember> Private mClearanceIsRequired As BooleanThe first example I wrote, stands on in the document, where writing datamember so many times with the word private seems to be a waste of space.
-
"It is a vessel of fertilizer, and none may abide its strength."
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason? Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful? --Zachris Topelius Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies. -- Sarah Hoyt
Refrain for abusive comments
-
I don't see any problem with it, as a matter of fact it actually reminds me of C++ member declaration.
To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems - Homer Simpson ---- Our heads are round so our thoughts can change direction - Francis Picabia
right on
-
So what? It seems like you're doing this and your looking for absolution from the community. Again, it's a matter of opinion and in a real environment with coding standards, what you've done may be outlawed.
A guide to posting questions on CodeProject
How to debug small programs
Dave KreskowiakWhite space. It's more important to people. Also as a programmer if you do not understand how a compiler is going to handle your code, you might consider another profession.
-
Considering I wasn't commenting on that at all, your post makes no sense. I was merely commenting that the compiler is never responsible for supporting the application, YOU are.
A guide to posting questions on CodeProject
How to debug small programs
Dave KreskowiakI see yes the context of how someone takes a sentence is important. The code is flawless, again the question was about coding practices.
-
At a first glance, I find this confusing. In particular because the DataMember attribute actually accepts a constructor parameter. - So if I set the constructor parameter, which field does it apply to? - Likewise, if you want to switch out serializers and use something like Protocol Buffers this syntax simply won't translate. You would need to break out each one as the constructor is required. - On top of this all, there's a mixing of types. I'm not a big fan of the "multi-declaration" syntax, especially when it doesn't save any actual lines like this example. But there are some cases where it is useful. That stated, if you're mixing types on the "multi-declarations", it's time split them out. I wouldn't call this "unacceptable" practice, especially in the context of firing someone over this. I would however call this "non-standard" and "confusing" and ask that it be changed.
Gates VP wrote:
That stated, if you're mixing types on the "multi-declarations", it's time split them out.
They are clearly separated by lines, if they were in the same line, then I would agree with you. As I said in my reply, it resembles a lot C++ declaration like:
private:
int x;
double y;
.
.
.The underscore even act as C++ semi-colon. It doesn't hurt readability as you can clearly see the types at the end of each line. I don't see any confusion, except that someone may be in doubt if the attribute applies only to the first variable or all of them.
To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems - Homer Simpson ---- Our heads are round so our thoughts can change direction - Francis Picabia
-
<System.Runtime.Serialization.DataMember>
Private mLastUpdated As DateTime, _
mLastUpdatedBy As String, _
mClearanceRequired As Int64, _
mClearanceIsRequired As BooleanVisual basic code; class members for serialization - declaring a group of variables as data members.
-
Refrain for abusive comments
Refrain from abusive code.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason? Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful? --Zachris Topelius Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies. -- Sarah Hoyt
-
I would say it is not acceptable because your intent is not clear, which makes the code difficult to maintain.
The comment above the code in a must inherit class Authorization data members: If Clearance Is Required the user attempting to change the value will have their clearance level validated against the clearance required. Collects who and when this class was last updated by - for data merging such as offline files.
-
Gates VP wrote:
That stated, if you're mixing types on the "multi-declarations", it's time split them out.
They are clearly separated by lines, if they were in the same line, then I would agree with you. As I said in my reply, it resembles a lot C++ declaration like:
private:
int x;
double y;
.
.
.The underscore even act as C++ semi-colon. It doesn't hurt readability as you can clearly see the types at the end of each line. I don't see any confusion, except that someone may be in doubt if the attribute applies only to the first variable or all of them.
To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems - Homer Simpson ---- Our heads are round so our thoughts can change direction - Francis Picabia
If you have 35 or 40 of these grouped into one segment, they're going to flow off the screen. If you want to mark just one of them as "public", do you copy/paste this to some other part of the file entirely? How does this affect the attributes? Remember, after you copy/paste the private variable to the public section, the original attributes are on a completely different screen. And you're not instinctively moving the attribute along with the variable.
Quote:
I don't see any confusion, except that someone may be in doubt if the attribute applies only to the first variable or all of them.
That's still confusion. And it's not really useful or purposeful confusion. You save a small number of characters and compile to the exact same IL code (hopefully) while introducing uncertainty for developers. This is the equivalent of doing C++ / C# if blocks without braces. You come back to this problem that actually caused real production issues on iOs: https://www.imperialviolet.org/2014/02/22/applebug.html[^]
-
As a general rule, explicit intent is better coding practice than implied intent.
I rather have white space, but agreed.
-
Gates VP wrote:
That stated, if you're mixing types on the "multi-declarations", it's time split them out.
They are clearly separated by lines, if they were in the same line, then I would agree with you. As I said in my reply, it resembles a lot C++ declaration like:
private:
int x;
double y;
.
.
.The underscore even act as C++ semi-colon. It doesn't hurt readability as you can clearly see the types at the end of each line. I don't see any confusion, except that someone may be in doubt if the attribute applies only to the first variable or all of them.
To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems - Homer Simpson ---- Our heads are round so our thoughts can change direction - Francis Picabia
This is actually one line of code, but that is why I break it into multiple lines using the _ character to cheat a little bit, so I only have to write the serialization tag once.
-
If you have 35 or 40 of these grouped into one segment, they're going to flow off the screen. If you want to mark just one of them as "public", do you copy/paste this to some other part of the file entirely? How does this affect the attributes? Remember, after you copy/paste the private variable to the public section, the original attributes are on a completely different screen. And you're not instinctively moving the attribute along with the variable.
Quote:
I don't see any confusion, except that someone may be in doubt if the attribute applies only to the first variable or all of them.
That's still confusion. And it's not really useful or purposeful confusion. You save a small number of characters and compile to the exact same IL code (hopefully) while introducing uncertainty for developers. This is the equivalent of doing C++ / C# if blocks without braces. You come back to this problem that actually caused real production issues on iOs: https://www.imperialviolet.org/2014/02/22/applebug.html[^]
I write generics my classes are never more then 300 lines of code and if I need more then 4 or so data members I am doing something wrong Also I would never declare a member of a class public, I use properties to expose members. The only reason these are grouped together is so I do not have to write the serialization tag out for each, its cheating a bit.
-
This is what it looked like before
<System.Runtime.Serialization.DataMember>
Private mLastUpdated As DateTime<System.Runtime.Serialization.DataMember> Private mLastUpdatedBy As String <System.Runtime.Serialization.DataMember> Private mClearanceRequired As Int64 <System.Runtime.Serialization.DataMember> Private mClearanceIsRequired As BooleanThe first example I wrote, stands on in the document, where writing datamember so many times with the word private seems to be a waste of space.
So to clarify, you're saying that "saving space" is more important than "providing clarity" and "avoiding bugs"? If you're trying to save space why are you: 1. Using Private at all? That's the default, just take it out. 2. Using that little "m" in the prefix. Why not just lower-case the first letter? ("lastUpdated") 3. Using full words when you could abbreviate everything? ("lstUpd") 4. Not importing the System.Runtime.Serialization on the file? Then you could just type ""! If "saving space" is really important, why aren't you doing it everywhere? And at the end of the day, all of this code is functionally equivalent, right? So it all compiles to the same IL. I'm just not understanding the "save space" argument here.