I think you're right, but I saw one guy here at work writing something like this for readability he said!
if (value != null) { ; } else if (value == null) { ; } > From: Paul Andrews <p...@ipauland.com> > Reply-To: Flash Coders List <flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com> > Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 22:17:05 +0100 > To: Flash Coders List <flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com> > Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] How to add a DisplayObject into a container without > using addChild() method. > > Dave Watts wrote: >> snip >> It really depends on the language. Since I'm moving (more or less) >> from Java to AS3, more or less, I'm usually using explicit expressions >> because that's what people do in Java. On the other hand, in the >> ColdFusion code I've written, I usually use implicit Boolean >> evaluation. >> > I don't think writing "good" code is related to languages, despite the > different constructs available between them. I think good coding style > is based on simple principles, and brevity or speed of coding is not > included. > > Short coding constructs may be perceived as elegant and aid coding > speed, but that wholly misses the point - coding isn't a race nor is > optimising the number of bytes in the source code. Showing a deep > knowledge of a software language through use of the language in ways > that are not so clear to mere mortals less familiar with the language, > isn't good. It is rarely a good idea to optimise code by using a faster > programming construct that makes the intention of the code less clear. > > Good coding should be clear - even for those less familiar with the > language. Truncated coding constructs may be efficient and even elegant, > but will they be easily understandable by someone else (or even the same > person much later)? Code minimalism can hide the true intention of the > code and introduce unintended behaviour when mistakes are made. When > code is expansive (verbose even) the intention of the code is clear. > When someone relies on some language behaviour for handling null values, > the reader may be left wondering whether the original developer really > intended that the code should handle nulls in this way, or is it some > accidental happenstance of using that construct? Are nulls really > relevant here in this code snippet or not. Testing specifically for > nulls is explicit and unambiguous. > > Maintainability - truncated constructs can sometimes mean that changes > for updates mean undoing the "efficient" constructs that performed well > for specific case they were coded for, but will have to be ditched > completely for the more complicated case, leaving the updater to unwind > the intention of the shorter construct and translate that to the wider case. > > As far as "fast" coding goes, everybody likes a helpful ide or editor, > but really fast coders really aren't team coders and the "need for > speed" is less important than the need for clarity. I'm not a fast > coder. Sometimes I wish I was an even slower coder, because then I'd > realise I could code things rather better than going rushing in to get > things done. > > I once worked with a guy who had a clear desk and often sat reading the > newspaper. It did attract some critical comment, but that guy had the > right idea. Before he started coding he spent a lot of time on the > design, getting that right. A faster code editor or fancy programming > wouldn't have made him a better developer. He spent most of his time > getting it right before his hands hit the keyboard. He was the best > developer I ever met. > > So, in my insignificant opinion - brevity == BAD, fast coding ==BAD. > > Paul > >> Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software >> http://www.figleaf.com/ >> >> Fig Leaf Software provides the highest caliber vendor-authorized >> instruction at our training centers in Washington DC, Atlanta, >> Chicago, Baltimore, Northern Virginia, or on-site at your location. >> Visit http://training.figleaf.com/ for more information! >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Flashcoders mailing list >> Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com >> http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders >> > _______________________________________________ > Flashcoders mailing list > Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com > http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders This e-mail is intended only for the named person or entity to which it is addressed and contains valuable business information that is proprietary, privileged, confidential and/or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you received this e-mail in error, any review, use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. Please notify us immediately of the error via e-mail to disclai...@tbwachiat.com and please delete the e-mail from your system, retaining no copies in any media. We appreciate your cooperation. _______________________________________________ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders