On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 4:23 PM, Christian Vest Hansen
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> What is it that makes this code "literate"?
Perhaps my understanding of the term is a bit off. What makes this
code different from most Clojure code I see is that the functions tend
to be very short and focused. I think this makes reading the code much
easier. I don't feel like I have to think as hard to figure out what
each piece is doing. This makes me more comfortable with including
almost no comments. For example, my previous version contained this:
(paintComponent [graphics]
(proxy-super paintComponent graphics)
(paint graphics @apple (colors :apple))
(doseq [point (:body @snake)]
(paint graphics point (colors :snake))))
My new version contains this:
(paintComponent [graphics]
(proxy-super paintComponent graphics)
(paint-apple graphics)
(paint-snake graphics))
This is a style that is strongly encouraged in Smalltalk, and perhaps
in many other programming communities. It's really just lots of
application of the "extract method" refactoring pattern.
--
R. Mark Volkmann
Object Computing, Inc.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
