Using IEnumerable nonsense for everything
-
You've probably seen this style if you're done anything with C# after 2007 or so. someStuff.Where(c => c != What).Select(d => d + The).Foreach(e => Hell(e)); Instead of, you know, a plain old `for` loop with an `if` in it and so on. Or maybe `foreach` if you want to be fancy. So, now we have nearly a decade of experience with this, can we finally settle this question: Is this style cancer? I still think it is, and the retort "you just have to get used to it" isn't going to work any more. I file this firmly under "stupid one-liner 'clever' code with no benefits to compensate". Yes, I've argued in the past that "clever code" isn't necessarily bad, and I'll keep saying that - there's a time and a place for it. But not if you're just trying to be cute. "Oh look at me, I put everything on one line, +1 nerd points for me" And this is even worse. It's not just cute with no benefits to compensate, it's cute and harder to read. Side question, why is this style popular?
-
You've probably seen this style if you're done anything with C# after 2007 or so. someStuff.Where(c => c != What).Select(d => d + The).Foreach(e => Hell(e)); Instead of, you know, a plain old `for` loop with an `if` in it and so on. Or maybe `foreach` if you want to be fancy. So, now we have nearly a decade of experience with this, can we finally settle this question: Is this style cancer? I still think it is, and the retort "you just have to get used to it" isn't going to work any more. I file this firmly under "stupid one-liner 'clever' code with no benefits to compensate". Yes, I've argued in the past that "clever code" isn't necessarily bad, and I'll keep saying that - there's a time and a place for it. But not if you're just trying to be cute. "Oh look at me, I put everything on one line, +1 nerd points for me" And this is even worse. It's not just cute with no benefits to compensate, it's cute and harder to read. Side question, why is this style popular?
harold aptroot wrote:
Is this style cancer?
Yes. Many fans of that style don't realize how many times the data gets copied and iterated when they do nonsense like that. What really irks me is the near-constant use of
ToListorToArray; those are definitely cries for help. Even a simpleforeachshould generally be avoided in situations where aforwill perform at least as well. -
You've probably seen this style if you're done anything with C# after 2007 or so. someStuff.Where(c => c != What).Select(d => d + The).Foreach(e => Hell(e)); Instead of, you know, a plain old `for` loop with an `if` in it and so on. Or maybe `foreach` if you want to be fancy. So, now we have nearly a decade of experience with this, can we finally settle this question: Is this style cancer? I still think it is, and the retort "you just have to get used to it" isn't going to work any more. I file this firmly under "stupid one-liner 'clever' code with no benefits to compensate". Yes, I've argued in the past that "clever code" isn't necessarily bad, and I'll keep saying that - there's a time and a place for it. But not if you're just trying to be cute. "Oh look at me, I put everything on one line, +1 nerd points for me" And this is even worse. It's not just cute with no benefits to compensate, it's cute and harder to read. Side question, why is this style popular?
Another issue is trying to debug it. If you get an error or exception then it's harder to debug when it's effectively a single statement.
harold aptroot wrote:
Side question, why is this style popular?
I worked with someone that used linq wherever possible. His argument was that it was "faster". I think people think that because something is new it's fast *shrug*
-
Another issue is trying to debug it. If you get an error or exception then it's harder to debug when it's effectively a single statement.
harold aptroot wrote:
Side question, why is this style popular?
I worked with someone that used linq wherever possible. His argument was that it was "faster". I think people think that because something is new it's fast *shrug*
-
You've probably seen this style if you're done anything with C# after 2007 or so. someStuff.Where(c => c != What).Select(d => d + The).Foreach(e => Hell(e)); Instead of, you know, a plain old `for` loop with an `if` in it and so on. Or maybe `foreach` if you want to be fancy. So, now we have nearly a decade of experience with this, can we finally settle this question: Is this style cancer? I still think it is, and the retort "you just have to get used to it" isn't going to work any more. I file this firmly under "stupid one-liner 'clever' code with no benefits to compensate". Yes, I've argued in the past that "clever code" isn't necessarily bad, and I'll keep saying that - there's a time and a place for it. But not if you're just trying to be cute. "Oh look at me, I put everything on one line, +1 nerd points for me" And this is even worse. It's not just cute with no benefits to compensate, it's cute and harder to read. Side question, why is this style popular?
I use it - though not the .ForEach on the end - because there are times when it provides a reliable, succinct, and clear way to process list (or other collection) based data.
var vidsWithOutPics = vidList.Except(vidsWithPics).Where(v => !v.IsAlternateTitle);
Or
var inDuration = DiskFile.GetAll().Where(df => !df.HasDuration).Select(df => df.Video).Distinct();
Or
var noSizeList = videoFiles.Where(file => file.Bytes < 0 && files.Contains(file.Location));
All I'm doing is "hiding" the loop so I don't have to write it! Yes, I could write each of those as loops - they aren't at all complex - but they would be longer; they would need debugging each time I wrote them. The other alternative would be to use Linq syntax, and that's pretty horrible!
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
-
You've probably seen this style if you're done anything with C# after 2007 or so. someStuff.Where(c => c != What).Select(d => d + The).Foreach(e => Hell(e)); Instead of, you know, a plain old `for` loop with an `if` in it and so on. Or maybe `foreach` if you want to be fancy. So, now we have nearly a decade of experience with this, can we finally settle this question: Is this style cancer? I still think it is, and the retort "you just have to get used to it" isn't going to work any more. I file this firmly under "stupid one-liner 'clever' code with no benefits to compensate". Yes, I've argued in the past that "clever code" isn't necessarily bad, and I'll keep saying that - there's a time and a place for it. But not if you're just trying to be cute. "Oh look at me, I put everything on one line, +1 nerd points for me" And this is even worse. It's not just cute with no benefits to compensate, it's cute and harder to read. Side question, why is this style popular?
I use whatever is appropriate, and refuse to use new language features just because they're new. I still resist using Entity Framework because generalization on that scale usually means bloated and inefficient code.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013 -
I use it - though not the .ForEach on the end - because there are times when it provides a reliable, succinct, and clear way to process list (or other collection) based data.
var vidsWithOutPics = vidList.Except(vidsWithPics).Where(v => !v.IsAlternateTitle);
Or
var inDuration = DiskFile.GetAll().Where(df => !df.HasDuration).Select(df => df.Video).Distinct();
Or
var noSizeList = videoFiles.Where(file => file.Bytes < 0 && files.Contains(file.Location));
All I'm doing is "hiding" the loop so I don't have to write it! Yes, I could write each of those as loops - they aren't at all complex - but they would be longer; they would need debugging each time I wrote them. The other alternative would be to use Linq syntax, and that's pretty horrible!
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
-
You've probably seen this style if you're done anything with C# after 2007 or so. someStuff.Where(c => c != What).Select(d => d + The).Foreach(e => Hell(e)); Instead of, you know, a plain old `for` loop with an `if` in it and so on. Or maybe `foreach` if you want to be fancy. So, now we have nearly a decade of experience with this, can we finally settle this question: Is this style cancer? I still think it is, and the retort "you just have to get used to it" isn't going to work any more. I file this firmly under "stupid one-liner 'clever' code with no benefits to compensate". Yes, I've argued in the past that "clever code" isn't necessarily bad, and I'll keep saying that - there's a time and a place for it. But not if you're just trying to be cute. "Oh look at me, I put everything on one line, +1 nerd points for me" And this is even worse. It's not just cute with no benefits to compensate, it's cute and harder to read. Side question, why is this style popular?
Well, no, Harold, I haven't seen that style because I haven't read any buggy code that was written by someone who did not know that the 'ForEach sequence iterator only works on a List<T>, and will fail on an IEnumerable<WhatEver> ... until ... now :) Eric Lippert would agree with you, however, that the 'ForEach iterator is 'gang aft agley': [^]. As Eric (famously) said: "Remember, the purpose of code is not just to communicate to the compiler it is to communicate to the future reader of the code; make it as clear as possible." While I do think there's something that many programmers innately find "satisfying" psychologically about method chaining a la functional programming, perhaps there is also an attraction to writing the most recent syntax as a way to ... "be cool" ? But, wait a minute, what about when the purpose of the 'ForEach iterator is to operate on a "projected" IEnumerable to modify elements of a collection where attempting to modify those elements in standard 'for, 'foreach, loops would result in an error. In that case, perhaps the creation of an "extra" List in order to use 'ForEach is ... useful ? cheers, Bill
«There is a spectrum, from "clearly desirable behaviour," to "possibly dodgy behavior that still makes some sense," to "clearly undesirable behavior." We try to make the latter into warnings or, better, errors. But stuff that is in the middle category you don’t want to restrict unless there is a clear way to work around it.» Eric Lippert, May 14, 2008
-
Well, no, Harold, I haven't seen that style because I haven't read any buggy code that was written by someone who did not know that the 'ForEach sequence iterator only works on a List<T>, and will fail on an IEnumerable<WhatEver> ... until ... now :) Eric Lippert would agree with you, however, that the 'ForEach iterator is 'gang aft agley': [^]. As Eric (famously) said: "Remember, the purpose of code is not just to communicate to the compiler it is to communicate to the future reader of the code; make it as clear as possible." While I do think there's something that many programmers innately find "satisfying" psychologically about method chaining a la functional programming, perhaps there is also an attraction to writing the most recent syntax as a way to ... "be cool" ? But, wait a minute, what about when the purpose of the 'ForEach iterator is to operate on a "projected" IEnumerable to modify elements of a collection where attempting to modify those elements in standard 'for, 'foreach, loops would result in an error. In that case, perhaps the creation of an "extra" List in order to use 'ForEach is ... useful ? cheers, Bill
«There is a spectrum, from "clearly desirable behaviour," to "possibly dodgy behavior that still makes some sense," to "clearly undesirable behavior." We try to make the latter into warnings or, better, errors. But stuff that is in the middle category you don’t want to restrict unless there is a clear way to work around it.» Eric Lippert, May 14, 2008
BillWoodruff wrote:
Well, no, Harold, I haven't seen that style because I haven't read any buggy code that was written by someone who did not know that the 'ForEach sequence iterator only works on a List<T>, and will fail on an IEnumerable<WhatEver> ... until ... now
Damn :) Can I get away with this if I pretend it's my own extension method?
-
BillWoodruff wrote:
Well, no, Harold, I haven't seen that style because I haven't read any buggy code that was written by someone who did not know that the 'ForEach sequence iterator only works on a List<T>, and will fail on an IEnumerable<WhatEver> ... until ... now
Damn :) Can I get away with this if I pretend it's my own extension method?
Hi, Harold, I am sending you via mental telepathy one of my rationalization-rations; I don't know why the gods give me so many ... is it because it's so clear I need them ? cheers, Bill
«There is a spectrum, from "clearly desirable behaviour," to "possibly dodgy behavior that still makes some sense," to "clearly undesirable behavior." We try to make the latter into warnings or, better, errors. But stuff that is in the middle category you don’t want to restrict unless there is a clear way to work around it.» Eric Lippert, May 14, 2008
-
But surely you need to debug this as well? Just in case? And that would be harder than if it were a normal loop
Yes - but you need to debug the criteria it's using rather than the complete code - which isn't complicated. Would you like to write and debug "Except" each time you need it? :laugh: No - so you'd write it once and call it from multiple places. Which is exactly what I do when I use
aCollection.Except(anotherCollection)- except I don't have to write it in the first place! And you have to admit thatvar inDuration = DiskFile.GetAll().Where(df => !df.HasDuration).Select(df => df.Video).Distinct();
Is a lot more readable than the "home brew" version using methods:
var inDuration = Distinct(Select(Where(DiskFile.GetAll(), Video), HasDuration));
Where it's a PITA to just make sure the brackets match up! :laugh: Yes, Linq methods can be slower to execute - but sometimes the absolute speed isn't that important, but reliability and ease of maintenance is.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
-
Yes - but you need to debug the criteria it's using rather than the complete code - which isn't complicated. Would you like to write and debug "Except" each time you need it? :laugh: No - so you'd write it once and call it from multiple places. Which is exactly what I do when I use
aCollection.Except(anotherCollection)- except I don't have to write it in the first place! And you have to admit thatvar inDuration = DiskFile.GetAll().Where(df => !df.HasDuration).Select(df => df.Video).Distinct();
Is a lot more readable than the "home brew" version using methods:
var inDuration = Distinct(Select(Where(DiskFile.GetAll(), Video), HasDuration));
Where it's a PITA to just make sure the brackets match up! :laugh: Yes, Linq methods can be slower to execute - but sometimes the absolute speed isn't that important, but reliability and ease of maintenance is.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
-
harold aptroot wrote:
Is this style cancer?
Yes. Many fans of that style don't realize how many times the data gets copied and iterated when they do nonsense like that. What really irks me is the near-constant use of
ToListorToArray; those are definitely cries for help. Even a simpleforeachshould generally be avoided in situations where aforwill perform at least as well.PIEBALDconsult wrote:
What really irks me is the near-constant use of
ToListorToArray; those are definitely cries for help.Depends, if you are getting it off EF or OData, sometimes you want to do in-memory processing. Specially within services.
Regards, Nish
Website: www.voidnish.com Blog: voidnish.wordpress.com
-
PIEBALDconsult wrote:
What really irks me is the near-constant use of
ToListorToArray; those are definitely cries for help.Depends, if you are getting it off EF or OData, sometimes you want to do in-memory processing. Specially within services.
Regards, Nish
Website: www.voidnish.com Blog: voidnish.wordpress.com
Uh huh, so why can't you?
-
Uh huh, so why can't you?
Uhm, I thought you said any use of ToArray is a cry for help?
Regards, Nish
Website: www.voidnish.com Blog: voidnish.wordpress.com
-
Uhm, I thought you said any use of ToArray is a cry for help?
Regards, Nish
Website: www.voidnish.com Blog: voidnish.wordpress.com
"the near-constant use"
-
You've probably seen this style if you're done anything with C# after 2007 or so. someStuff.Where(c => c != What).Select(d => d + The).Foreach(e => Hell(e)); Instead of, you know, a plain old `for` loop with an `if` in it and so on. Or maybe `foreach` if you want to be fancy. So, now we have nearly a decade of experience with this, can we finally settle this question: Is this style cancer? I still think it is, and the retort "you just have to get used to it" isn't going to work any more. I file this firmly under "stupid one-liner 'clever' code with no benefits to compensate". Yes, I've argued in the past that "clever code" isn't necessarily bad, and I'll keep saying that - there's a time and a place for it. But not if you're just trying to be cute. "Oh look at me, I put everything on one line, +1 nerd points for me" And this is even worse. It's not just cute with no benefits to compensate, it's cute and harder to read. Side question, why is this style popular?
Definitely, cancer in my world. My goal is to build quality software that any level of developer can easily understand and change, if needed. Hey, I might die tomorrow. I don't run after the newest thing and don't try to be fancy or cute. It is probably popular because organizations, such as MSFT, bring out new features to get more people on board using their products. Young people just starting out have a difficult time getting established, plus they like to be fashionable; so they try to code fancy with all the new stuff, to make the big money.
-
You've probably seen this style if you're done anything with C# after 2007 or so. someStuff.Where(c => c != What).Select(d => d + The).Foreach(e => Hell(e)); Instead of, you know, a plain old `for` loop with an `if` in it and so on. Or maybe `foreach` if you want to be fancy. So, now we have nearly a decade of experience with this, can we finally settle this question: Is this style cancer? I still think it is, and the retort "you just have to get used to it" isn't going to work any more. I file this firmly under "stupid one-liner 'clever' code with no benefits to compensate". Yes, I've argued in the past that "clever code" isn't necessarily bad, and I'll keep saying that - there's a time and a place for it. But not if you're just trying to be cute. "Oh look at me, I put everything on one line, +1 nerd points for me" And this is even worse. It's not just cute with no benefits to compensate, it's cute and harder to read. Side question, why is this style popular?
It seems I may be in the minority, but I don't find that (or predicates in general) unreadable. /ravi
My new year resolution: 2048 x 1536 Home | Articles | My .NET bits | Freeware ravib(at)ravib(dot)com
-
You've probably seen this style if you're done anything with C# after 2007 or so. someStuff.Where(c => c != What).Select(d => d + The).Foreach(e => Hell(e)); Instead of, you know, a plain old `for` loop with an `if` in it and so on. Or maybe `foreach` if you want to be fancy. So, now we have nearly a decade of experience with this, can we finally settle this question: Is this style cancer? I still think it is, and the retort "you just have to get used to it" isn't going to work any more. I file this firmly under "stupid one-liner 'clever' code with no benefits to compensate". Yes, I've argued in the past that "clever code" isn't necessarily bad, and I'll keep saying that - there's a time and a place for it. But not if you're just trying to be cute. "Oh look at me, I put everything on one line, +1 nerd points for me" And this is even worse. It's not just cute with no benefits to compensate, it's cute and harder to read. Side question, why is this style popular?
As others have said, it might give you "nerd points", but IMO it is the C# equivalent of APL one-liners - easy to write, impossible to debug or understand 6 months down the line. Under some circumstances, this coding style may produce faster code, but that remains to be measured.
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack. --Winston Churchill
-
Well, no, Harold, I haven't seen that style because I haven't read any buggy code that was written by someone who did not know that the 'ForEach sequence iterator only works on a List<T>, and will fail on an IEnumerable<WhatEver> ... until ... now :) Eric Lippert would agree with you, however, that the 'ForEach iterator is 'gang aft agley': [^]. As Eric (famously) said: "Remember, the purpose of code is not just to communicate to the compiler it is to communicate to the future reader of the code; make it as clear as possible." While I do think there's something that many programmers innately find "satisfying" psychologically about method chaining a la functional programming, perhaps there is also an attraction to writing the most recent syntax as a way to ... "be cool" ? But, wait a minute, what about when the purpose of the 'ForEach iterator is to operate on a "projected" IEnumerable to modify elements of a collection where attempting to modify those elements in standard 'for, 'foreach, loops would result in an error. In that case, perhaps the creation of an "extra" List in order to use 'ForEach is ... useful ? cheers, Bill
«There is a spectrum, from "clearly desirable behaviour," to "possibly dodgy behavior that still makes some sense," to "clearly undesirable behavior." We try to make the latter into warnings or, better, errors. But stuff that is in the middle category you don’t want to restrict unless there is a clear way to work around it.» Eric Lippert, May 14, 2008
BillWoodruff wrote:
and will fail on an IEnumerable<WhatEver>
Which is why I have an extension method to overcome that shortcoming. ;) Marc
Imperative to Functional Programming Succinctly Contributors Wanted for Higher Order Programming Project! Learning to code with python is like learning to swim with those little arm floaties. It gives you undeserved confidence and will eventually drown you. - DangerBunny
