[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MAHOUT-913?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13165466#comment-13165466
]
Sean Owen commented on MAHOUT-913:
----------------------------------
1d and 1f look like hex literals to me -- at the least, I'd argue for 1.0d and
1.0f. They're obviously the floating point values that they are that way.
Of course, if you *mean* to use a floating-point or long literal you most
certainly must use these qualifiers. No argument there, at all. (1l ought to be
1L to avoid confusion with eleven!) 'd' is never needed to explicitly qualify a
double literal.
"1" is an int and there is no qualifier for int (right?). "1L" is long and
needs a qualifier. "1" is the default not because of its precision but just
because it's the more commonly used type. By symmetry I'd expect conventional
use to be "1.0" and "1.0f"; I actually don't know why there's a 'd'.
I'd argue that convention is strongly against 1.0d; I've not seen it used
anywhere (other than Mahout), it's not in Sun's style guide, it's flagged as
"confusing" by IntelliJ by default, etc. That's not to say it's wrong, just a
statement about what is probably unsurprising for most developers.
> Style changes / discussion
> --------------------------
>
> Key: MAHOUT-913
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MAHOUT-913
> Project: Mahout
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Affects Versions: 0.5
> Reporter: Sean Owen
> Assignee: Sean Owen
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: 0.6
>
> Attachments: MAHOUT-913.patch
>
>
> Guys I've still been seeing code committed that doesn't match standard Java
> style or a reasonable policy I can imagine. I wanted to talk about it since
> I've just been silently changing it and that is not ideal.
> This should be easy to get right, as automated tools exist to check and fix
> this. I recommend IntelliJ's free Community edition. Flip on even basic
> inspections. A hundred things will jump out (that are already jumping out at
> me). Most are automatically fixable.
> I think that standardized, readable code invites attention, work and care: it
> feels like something you want to improve, and don't want to hack up.
> I think it helps attract committers. Strong engineering organizations
> wouldn't let basic style problems in the codebase, just by using automated
> checks. Code reviews don't begin otherwise, and then reviews focus on real
> issues like design. We can make a basic effort to approach that level of
> quality. Otherwise, people who are used to a higher standard won't be
> inclined to participate in the project, and will just fork.
> I think it's a prerequisite to fixing real design issues, TODOs, correctness
> problems (cloning for instance), and refactorings. This code is not near that
> point, and won't get there at this rate.
> Personally it makes we want to only support anything I've written, and write
> any "next generation" recommender system in a new and separate venture. And
> I'm a friendly, and maybe not the only one! So would be great to keep some
> focus on quality and design.
> Here's a patch showing all the changes I've picked up and made with the IDE
> -- *just* basic style issues, and just since the last 2 weeks. The issues
> are, among others:
> ⁃ Empty javadoc
> ⁃ Redundant javadoc ("@param foo the foo")
> ⁃ Missing copyright headers
> ⁃ Copyright headers not at top of file (sometimes after imports!)
> ⁃ Very long lines (>> 120 chars)
> ⁃ "throws Exception" not on main() or test method
> ⁃ "transient" fields -- should never be used for us
> ⁃ Missing @Override
> ⁃ Using new Random()
> ⁃ Redundant boolean expressions like "foo == true"
> ⁃ Unused variables and parameters
> ⁃ Unused imports
> ⁃ Loops and conditionals without braces
> ⁃ Weird literals ("1d")
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
