var abuse
-
varis good for LINQ but I'd avoid it in most other places for clarity.I totally agree with you. And when people start abusing of
varmakes me go raging bull! -
List list=new List();is only one extra character to type, and is clearer IMO.Declarations get a lot more complex than that and it is wasteful to repeat it on both sides.
-
And why? I can understand some cases in which you want to make code more compact, as
List myName = new List();
to use a
var myName = new List();
or as mentioned before in cases that you do not know the return type. But using always
varonly because of laziness, just pisses me of!I agree. It has its uses but also its abuses
-
I'm so pissed of by
varabusers. They do not understand that are making code unreadable, for what, writingvarinstead ofstring? Having the same problems in your company? ex.var metadataValues = new List<object>();
foreach (var metadataDefName in metadataDefNames)
{
var name = metadataDefName;
// Search definition with the same name.
var metadata = metadataCollection.FirstOrDefault(
metadataDef => String.Equals(metadataDef.MetaData.Name, name, StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase));
...Cheers!
Or you are using ReSharper and tell it to autofix the "problems" in your code.
Forgive your enemies - it messes with their heads
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier - my favourite utility
-
I'm so pissed of by
varabusers. They do not understand that are making code unreadable, for what, writingvarinstead ofstring? Having the same problems in your company? ex.var metadataValues = new List<object>();
foreach (var metadataDefName in metadataDefNames)
{
var name = metadataDefName;
// Search definition with the same name.
var metadata = metadataCollection.FirstOrDefault(
metadataDef => String.Equals(metadataDef.MetaData.Name, name, StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase));
...Cheers!
It's VB creep: The bits of VB that mean that you don't have to think about what you are doing are slowly being introduced to C#. Coming soon: "On Error Resume Next" Then it will be time to go back to C++ because C# will be mostly used by lazy idiots who don't care a fig for maintenance.
Real men don't use instructions. They are only the manufacturers opinion on how to put the thing together. Manfred R. Bihy: "Looks as if OP is learning resistant."
-
Or you are using ReSharper and tell it to autofix the "problems" in your code.
Forgive your enemies - it messes with their heads
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier - my favourite utility
Is there a function in ReSharper that teaches up colleagues not doing it? :) I tried in many ways to explain why of some practices, even tried to make them read the book as http://www.amazon.com/Practical-Guidelines-Practices-Developers-Pro-Developer/dp/0735621721[^] but nothing. The most difficult think is to convince people to change! But without the passion for your job, it is a difficult task (to change).
-
It's VB creep: The bits of VB that mean that you don't have to think about what you are doing are slowly being introduced to C#. Coming soon: "On Error Resume Next" Then it will be time to go back to C++ because C# will be mostly used by lazy idiots who don't care a fig for maintenance.
Real men don't use instructions. They are only the manufacturers opinion on how to put the thing together. Manfred R. Bihy: "Looks as if OP is learning resistant."
I think you're right. But I hope not! Recently I helped on a badly written project in VB.NET and it was a nightmare.
-
It's VB creep: The bits of VB that mean that you don't have to think about what you are doing are slowly being introduced to C#. Coming soon: "On Error Resume Next" Then it will be time to go back to C++ because C# will be mostly used by lazy idiots who don't care a fig for maintenance.
Real men don't use instructions. They are only the manufacturers opinion on how to put the thing together. Manfred R. Bihy: "Looks as if OP is learning resistant."
OriginalGriff wrote:
Coming soon: "On Error Resume Next"
I thought it was "On Error GoTo Hell" Oh well, I never attend VB class in the second year of my high school
You can flame me whichever way you want and I wouldn't care a bit. But if you group me with some idiots, I'll turn into your worst nightmare.
-
OriginalGriff wrote:
Coming soon: "On Error Resume Next"
I thought it was "On Error GoTo Hell" Oh well, I never attend VB class in the second year of my high school
You can flame me whichever way you want and I wouldn't care a bit. But if you group me with some idiots, I'll turn into your worst nightmare.
:laugh: No,
Resume Nextis much more damaging in the long term!Real men don't use instructions. They are only the manufacturers opinion on how to put the thing together. Manfred R. Bihy: "Looks as if OP is learning resistant."
-
I'm so pissed of by
varabusers. They do not understand that are making code unreadable, for what, writingvarinstead ofstring? Having the same problems in your company? ex.var metadataValues = new List<object>();
foreach (var metadataDefName in metadataDefNames)
{
var name = metadataDefName;
// Search definition with the same name.
var metadata = metadataCollection.FirstOrDefault(
metadataDef => String.Equals(metadataDef.MetaData.Name, name, StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase));
...Cheers!
I agree, I've seen code here with var used everywhere (C#), complained to the SW Architect, he sent out an email saying it sould only be used where required. It's the newest, youngest guy in the place using it most. It's F***in sloppy, lazy sh*t!
Pete
-
var list = new List(); is good var x = GetStuff(); is not good
RugbyLeague wrote:
var list = new List();
is goodWTF!!! IList<string> list = new List<string>(); // is good (your < and > hid the string bit (I think)) List<string> list = new List<string>(); // is good var list = new List<string>(); // is sloppy, lazy sh1t!
Pete
-
RugbyLeague wrote:
var list = new List();
is goodWTF!!! IList<string> list = new List<string>(); // is good (your < and > hid the string bit (I think)) List<string> list = new List<string>(); // is good var list = new List<string>(); // is sloppy, lazy sh1t!
Pete
Ah, I wondered what happened to the generics bit on my OP How is it sloppy and lazy?
-
Ah, I wondered what happened to the generics bit on my OP How is it sloppy and lazy?
You know what the variable type is, so declare it!
Pete
-
You know what the variable type is, so declare it!
Pete
Why? What is the point of repeating information?
-
I agree, I've seen code here with var used everywhere (C#), complained to the SW Architect, he sent out an email saying it sould only be used where required. It's the newest, youngest guy in the place using it most. It's F***in sloppy, lazy sh*t!
Pete
Peter Mulholland wrote:
It's F***in sloppy, lazy sh*t!
:thumbsup:
----------------------------- Just along for the ride. -----------------------------
-
Ah, I wondered what happened to the generics bit on my OP How is it sloppy and lazy?
Coming from a C++ background, I feel it doesn't improve the readability of the code, particularly when used to accept a return value from a method. In my experience, those that like it overuse and abuse it. It was a mistake to add it to the C# language.
Pete
-
Coming from a C++ background, I feel it doesn't improve the readability of the code, particularly when used to accept a return value from a method. In my experience, those that like it overuse and abuse it. It was a mistake to add it to the C# language.
Pete
I come from a C++ background too and I like var - I agree using it to accept a return value from a method is a poor use of it.
-
And why? I can understand some cases in which you want to make code more compact, as
List myName = new List();
to use a
var myName = new List();
or as mentioned before in cases that you do not know the return type. But using always
varonly because of laziness, just pisses me of!The 'why' is because the type is already there in the line, so using var doesn't remove any information. Personally I only use it very rarely but that's a matter of style, I think it is fine when the type is in the line anyway (either as a new expression or an explicit cast:
var something = (TypeName)expression). -
I'm so pissed of by
varabusers. They do not understand that are making code unreadable, for what, writingvarinstead ofstring? Having the same problems in your company? ex.var metadataValues = new List<object>();
foreach (var metadataDefName in metadataDefNames)
{
var name = metadataDefName;
// Search definition with the same name.
var metadata = metadataCollection.FirstOrDefault(
metadataDef => String.Equals(metadataDef.MetaData.Name, name, StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase));
...Cheers!
Reason for my 1 vote: There is nothing wrong with that. If you need to get the type, just hover over the 'var' in the IDE.
-
Reason for my 1 vote: There is nothing wrong with that. If you need to get the type, just hover over the 'var' in the IDE.
Meanwhile I'm reading the code I can't constantly hover the vars! Com'on, how can you say that??? :)
And this is the lounge, I'm not discussing about what should be a good practice, I lament about things that makes me piss off.
