in reply to Re: Re: $bad_names eq $bad_design
in thread $bad_names eq $bad_design
Yes! It side-steps domain knowledge. Lets expand on this point.
Consider this code:
An experienced Perl coder would instantly, subconciously, grok the control-flow within it. Part of this understanding relies on convention, so could be subverted, but just look at the amount of information/expectation we have:if ($a->is_xxx_yyy && $b < PPP_QQQ) { ... }
- $a is an object (the -> operator)
- is_xxx_yyy is a predicate (starts with word "is")
- is_xxx_yyy has no side effects (because its a predicate)
- If is_xxx_yyy is false, then $b is irrelevant (&& short-circuits)
- PPP_QQQ is a constant (upper-case)
- PPP_QQQ is numeric (the numeric comparison)
- $b is numeric (ditto)
- The rhs has a single boundary (the inequality).
Compare this with an abstracted function call:
The perl-brain gleams no information from this. Understanding it relies entirely on the quality of the name of the identifier. And we all know how hard it is to create a really good identifier name.if (xxx_yyy_ppp_qqq($a,$b))
--Dave
|
---|
In Section
Meditations