Comment onby gods
|on Feb 11, 2000 at 00:06 UTC||Need Help??|
I find it significantly easier and faster to parse the intent.
Could you quantify (in some fashion) what you mean by "significantly easier and faster"?
I find your version quite horrible to parse.
As for your last example, I find it almost incredulous that you would code that; and almost impossible to parse without reformatting it.
Why not just:
I also find the concentration on the minutia of single statements far less important than the overall flow of the code.
That is, when scanning the code, I only need to recognise that $mol has been initialised, and then the next step and the next. I'll only be concerned with what it was initialised to once I understand the overall flow; and if I suspect that might be the source of the problem I'm looking for, or otherwise needs closer inspection.
I don't need to know all the details of each line (or 3 lines!) of code from an instantaneous glance. If I have to read the line twice to understand what it does -- maybe take 2 seconds instead of 1/2 a second -- it is no biggy in the scheme of things. But understanding the overall flow of the subroutine or block is far more important, and that -- for me at least -- means being able to see as much of that subroutine or block as -- clearly defined steps -- as possible. Which is why I infinitely prefer the one line versions to your 3 or 5 line examples.
With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
In reply to Re^2: Two simple code style advice questions (tye)