151–160 of 203 posts
These seem like good rules to follow, but there's nothing to suggest that they reduce cognitive load. To make that claim, you need experiments testing brain function or at least people's behavior...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
state can be passed through as arguments...
When coding in C, I often package the state that's shared between a high-level function and its local subroutines in a local "struct context" that's instantiated in the high-level function and then passed by address as the first argument to the subroutines. Makes it easy to see what the shared state is, and adding/changing the shared state doesn't require changing all the formal and actual argument lists.
Stopped reading at "Place models, views and controllers in their own folders". No worse way to organize your code than classify by behavior type. "Here are all the daos", "here is all business logic", "here are all the controllers". You add a feature as small as resource CRUD and scatter it's pieces across the whole code base. No.
Honest question from someone with little real world experience outside .Net: This is MVC's convention, to "Place models, views and controllers in their own folders", and it's what I'm used to working with. Can you point me to resources outlining other methods (responding with google "XYZ" would be fine too).
Package "employee" contains: EmployeeDto, EmployeeService, EmployeeController Package "order" contains: OrderDto, OrderService, OrderController
And so on. This way logic that is closely related is kept closeby.
Stopped reading at "Place models, views and controllers in their own folders". No worse way to organize your code than classify by behavior type. "Here are all the daos", "here is all business logic", "here are all the controllers". You add a feature as small as resource CRUD and scatter it's pieces across the whole code base. No.
Honest question from someone with little real world experience outside .Net: This is MVC's convention, to "Place models, views and controllers in their own folders", and it's what I'm used to working with. Can you point me to resources outlining other methods (responding with google "XYZ" would be fine too).
Good advice and worth reading especially for younger devs. With respect to... >> Prefix systems like hungarian notation were initially meant to add meaning, but with time they ended up being used in less contextual ways, such as just to add type information. Hungarian notation was pretty cumbersome to read, actually, and I think the main reason it fell out of use is that editors and IDEs began to make type and declar…
One of the major functions of Hungarian notion was to communicate information which was not contained in the types of the actual variables, for example an int could be a count of bytes 'cb', or perhaps a handle 'h', etc. But it ended up being mostly misused to communicate redundant type information, such as a char* being 'sz' (zero-terminated string), which tells us nothing we didn't already know. As you say, better…
These are the only ways to reduce cognitive load and they apply to any situation where one needs to understand something. After all, code is about understanding.
Anecdotally, the specific methods mentioned in the article that seem most valid stem from the guiding principle of maximizing order, which drastically reduces the cognitive load of the contents of the article.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's like the function composition operator [1] in Haskell, right? Very neat :D I wonder if there's an equivalent macro in Scala ... [1]: http://lambda.jstolarek.com/2012/03/function-composition-and...
It's more like the pipe operator in ocaml ( http://blog.shaynefletcher.org/2013/12/pipelining-with-opera... ). The lisp version has the extra advantage that you don't have to repeat it between all the intermediate functions. ((->> 2 (* 100) str count) vs 2 |> (* 100) |> str |> count).
Would it not be possible to do something similar in another functional language to take a and apply it sequentially to a list of function calls?
In web projects, this is what has kept me coming back to CoffeeScript: we found it less distracting visually, given the kind of code we were writing (heavy call-back oriented, lots of chained methods).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I recently got a code review that in several places suggested I switch to the new Java 8 stream API [1]. I just flatly responded that it was far less readable, even if I could condense a half-dozen lines of code down to one. Where I can quickly scan over a foreach loop to get the jist of what it's doing, I have to closely examine each call in the new approach to have any idea what it's doing. [1] http://www.oracle.co…
Look, you're basically just saying you don't want to learn anything new. "I just flatly responded that it was far less readable, even if I could condense a half-dozen lines of code down to one." Express the exact same thing, in 1/6 the code, and somehow the shorter code takes longer to read and understand? You don't even attempt to express why you find the shorter code harder to understand. Or show code written both…
I think people need to differentiate between code review and code scanning. I look at code completely different when someone is pointing to it than when I'm scanning through a file. A ternary operator isn't tough to read when you're already looking at it. However, scanning through a file I'm going to have a lot more difficulty spotting a `?` than I am the indentation of an if/else block. I'm more than content to take 5 lines instead of 1 to spot it 2 months later when I don't know what I'm looking at.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps an alternative would be valid_user = loggedIn() && hasRole(ROLE_ADMIN) if (valid_user) { valid_data = data != null && validate(data) if (valid_data) { ... } }
For whatever reason, I'd prefer comments to this version. Note: I actually agree with the OP about pulling the logic into named conditionals whenever possible, but in the case you do want the short-circuiting behavior I would not bother with the variables at that point. if (loggedIn() && hasRole(ROLE_ADMIN)) { // User has permission to do this if (data != null && validate(data)) { // Submitted data is valid ... } }
if (isValidUser() && isValidData(data))