Rational argument for not defining string constant for emptystring?
in [Java Programming]
|
From: Eric Sosman on 14 Mar 2010 09:27 On 3/13/2010 6:36 PM, Lothar Kimmeringer wrote: > Stefan Ram wrote: > >> Actually, it holds /less/ information. We do not know its text, >> it could be defined as >> >> EMPTY_STRING := "EMPTY_STRING" >> >> or >> >> EMPTY_STRING := "empty" >> >> or so. > > That would be a new entry for the dailywtf. Best until now was > enum Bool = {True, False, FileNotFound} I'll offer one that a colleague once came across (in a different programming language): #define HASHSIZE 51 /* a smallish prime */ The day when compilers can detect this class of error is the day when we'll all lose our jobs. -- Eric Sosman esosman(a)ieee-dot-org.invalid
From: Arne Vajhøj on 14 Mar 2010 12:32 On 14-03-2010 09:53, Stefan Ram wrote: > Eric Sosman<esosman(a)ieee-dot-org.invalid> writes: >> #define HASHSIZE 51 /* a smallish prime */ >> The day when compilers can detect this class of error >> is the day when we'll all lose our jobs. > > Already today one can write: > > #define HASHSIZE 51 > #define HASHSIZE_ASSERTATIONS \ > assert new java.math.BigInteger( HASHSIZE ).isProbablePrime( 999999 ); \ > assert HASHSIZE>= 1; \ > assert HASHSIZE<= 1000; Do you run your Java code through the C preprocessor? Arne
From: Arne Vajhøj on 14 Mar 2010 12:33 On 14-03-2010 11:47, Roedy Green wrote: > On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 08:37:09 -0800 (PST), "david.karr" > <davidmichaelkarr(a)gmail.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted > someone who said : >> String foo = ""; >> >> should instead be: >> >> String foo = StringConstants.EMPTY_STRING; > > The first generates almost the same code and is terser. > > If it were your money, would you pay programmers to type the longer > form? In projects where developers are paid for programming, then the time to type in code is usually insignificant. Arne
From: Lew on 14 Mar 2010 14:40
Eric Sosman writes: >> #define HASHSIZE 51 /* a smallish prime */ >> The day when compilers can detect this class of error >> is the day when we'll all lose our jobs. Stefan Ram wrote: > Already today one can write: > > #define HASHSIZE 51 > #define HASHSIZE_ASSERTATIONS \ > assert new java.math.BigInteger( HASHSIZE ).isProbablePrime( 999999 ); \ > assert HASHSIZE >= 1; \ > assert HASHSIZE <= 1000; > > . I'd call this the »replace-comments-by-asserts refactor«. I would really, really hope that first assertion fails. (I'm ignoring the blend of C and Java syntax. I pretend that "#define" is really a 'private static final ...') > However, the word »smallish« has a certain vagueness that "Prime", however, does not. > can be resolved by a human given a certain application/context. > So my translation to »<= 1000« might not be appropriate. Irrelevant, perhaps. -- Lew |