My guess is the original poster also meant 'all else being equal', not
'if I remove levels of abstraction'.
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 1:05 PM, Liam Knox <liamjk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> But there is so much more to all of this than something a banal as
> attributing it to numbers of characters. For example levels of abstraction
> within a method, naming, method size etc, etc, etc. I just can't understand
> why people simply bound around these pointless conjectures and random
> percentages figures.
>
> On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 8:37 PM, Ricky Clarkson <ricky.clark...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Fewer lines, all else being equal, will on average lead to fewer bugs.
>> Programming is largely about reading, and the larger the code the
>> harder it is to spot a logic error. I'm not advocating Perl-like
>> obfuscation ($_ anyone?), removing identifiers that have meaning, but
>> instead advocating removal of boilerplate, and identifiers that have
>> no meaning.
>>
>> In a related topic, sometimes I find myself shortening code so that I
>> can see the bugs more clearly. I find it very effective.
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 12:28 PM, Miroslav Pokorny
>> <miroslav.poko...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 7:04 PM, Kevin Wright <kev.lee.wri...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> No, I never stated that, because I don't believe it.
>> >> Using higher-level concepts with fewer *tokens* will reduce the number
>> >> of
>> >> bugs. It just so happens that few tokens usually result in shorter
>> >> code.
>> >
>> > Thats not what you said, you made a generalised sweeping statement that
>> > can
>> > only be wrong because nothing in software is ever that simple.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> I don't even consider comments when thinking about how long code is,
>> >> because comments aren't code.
>> >> Using shorter identifiers *may* reduce the risk of bugs if they're
>> >> otherwise so long that they obscure the essential complexity of an
>> >> algorithm. Seriously, would you write something like this?
>> >> for(int
>> >>
>> >> indexOfAuthorInCurrentIteration=0; indexOfAuthorInCurrentIteration<=authorsFromNameQuery.length;
>> >> ++indexOfAuthorInCurrentIteration) {
>> >> Author currentAuthorBeingIteratedOver
>> >> = authorsFromNameQuery[indexOfAuthorInCurrentIteration]
>> >> // do something with the author
>> >> }
>> >> Do you NOT believe that shorter names would make the example clearer?
>> >>
>> >> On 25 October 2010 02:38, Miroslav Pokorny <miroslav.poko...@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> @Kevin
>> >>>
>> >>> I guess refactoring code so all identifiers are really short single
>> >>> characters ( a human powered obfuscator) means i just made my code
>> >>> have less
>> >>> bugs..right ?
>> >>>
>> >>> If my class names are shorter and thus my source files have less
>> >>> characters does that mean my code has less bugs ?
>> >>>
>> >>> if my code has no comments does that mean it has less bugs ?
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> >>> Groups
>> >>> "The Java Posse" group.
>> >>> To post to this group, send email to javapo...@googlegroups.com.
>> >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> >>> javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> >>> For more options, visit this group at
>> >>> http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Kevin Wright
>> >>
>> >> mail / gtalk / msn : kev.lee.wri...@gmail.com
>> >> pulse / skype: kev.lee.wright
>> >> twitter: @thecoda
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> >> Groups
>> >> "The Java Posse" group.
>> >> To post to this group, send email to javapo...@googlegroups.com.
>> >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> >> javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> >> For more options, visit this group at
>> >> http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > mP
>> >
>> > --
>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> > Groups
>> > "The Java Posse" group.
>> > To post to this group, send email to javapo...@googlegroups.com.
>> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> > javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> > For more options, visit this group at
>> > http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
>> >
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "The Java Posse" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to javapo...@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
>>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "The Java Posse" group.
> To post to this group, send email to javapo...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The
Java Posse" group.
To post to this group, send email to javapo...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
