Anonymous user
User talk:AnatolV: Difference between revisions
adding a few notes
mNo edit summary |
(adding a few notes) |
||
Line 1:
==Aphorisms (good to follow or just keep in mind)==
From my OEIS Wiki user page.<br>
'''Socrates''' (470 BC - 399 BC)<br>
"As for me, all I know is that I know nothing."<br>
"Question everything."<br>
'''Terence''' (195 BC - 159 BC)<br>
"There are as many opinions as there are people: each has his own correct way."<br>
"Nothing is so difficult but that it may be found out by seeking."<br>
'''Edgar Rice Burroughs''' (1875 - 1950)<br>
"We are, all of us, creatures of habit."<br>
[Find more on my OEIS Wiki user page and much more on Wikiquote.]
==About Clean Code and Internet Graffiti==
The following is a short list of bad practices in programming industry (related to the code only):
* Very long historical and/or technical '''preludes'''.
* Multiple '''comments''' (almost on each line).
* '''Decorating code''', e.g., using tricky frames for comments, also, unnecessary multiple pound and other signs,
* Obsession with tabbing (code is shifted too far to the right side). And opposite: totally avoiding '''identification'''.
* '''Splitting''' one statement (fitting one line) into 5 lines. And opposite: putting 10 and more statements on 1 line..
* '''Code leftovers''': not used definitions, variables, code fragments for testing, etc.
* '''Typos''' in the code.
All of these bad practices you can find here on Rosetta Code.<br>
Doesn't matter what contributing author, or somebody else thinks about it, - it is still a bad practice known and avoiding for decades.<br>
If you have/had a job as a programmer/developer for a solid company or university producing software (including Web pages) it is well known fact for you that your supervisor will not
allow/tolerate any of these bad practices.<br>
'''Main reason is always - money.''' Such "dirty", not structured code is difficult to read and maintain.<br>
I'm not gonna write an article here. Just google please: "bad programming practice", and you will find hundreds of pages devoted to it.
But be reasonable in selecting some advises. For example, you can find advises about '''comments''' ranging from "too many is bad" to
"not enough is bad", but also: "Do not write code that needs comments."<br>
The good '''rule of thumb''' in this case is following: If function (method, etc.) is 5-10 lines of code or less then describe briefly function purpose and calling parameters only (if any).<br>
Here is another contradictory advise popular in many documents, books, etc.: "use '''white spaces'' to make code more readable". But, contrary, it is not a bad practice/habit to use minimal number of white spaces.<br>
If you are using languages that would be interpreted, e.g., Java, JavaScript, PHP, ASP/ASPX, etc., then all comments are usually deleted and code is shrunk as much as possible
to speed up processing time. So, keep well documented version of code in archive.<br>
'''Decorating code''' and using not related images are considered an "Internet graffiti"
by some authors/bloggers. But more often it is called just trash and spam.<br>
Regarding "preludes" here on RC I would say they are OK, but better place would be on related language page, e.g., with titles like "Interesting historical notes"
"Useful XXX language tips", etc.<br>
The main reason: task pages becoming too big and looking through it sometimes is really difficult.<br>
Here is another sample. My VoeLib.gp page (pure text file) on OEIS Wiki became too big, and I've got automatic Wiki message: "Your page is bigger than 32K. Please reduce its size. Some browsers can't
handle big pages". This forced me to split my page into 2 pages. Soon we will have the same problem here on RC.
See another even more appropriate suggestion below.
==How to handle huge code and comments==
Here is a very good sample how to handle big chunk of code and, additionally, how to deal with huge comments.<br>
Task page [[AVL_tree| AVL tree]] has [[AVL_tree#C.2B.2B| C++]] 3 versions.<br>
Note that first version has a realy huge chunk of code. But "More elaborate version" has no code,- just a link: "See AVL_tree/C++".<br>
It links to: "AVL tree/C++" page with huge code, and this page has a typical "Discussion" link that leads to:<br>
[[Talk:AVL_tree/C%2B%2B| Talk page]] titled "Talk:AVL tree/C++". So, put all notes you want here.
[[User:AnatolV|AnatolV]] ([[User talk:AnatolV|talk]])
==Obsessed??==
'''<<This is copied from Dragon curve Discussion page. Just added 1 related reply.>>'''<br>
Some contributors are obsessed with:
* Very long historical and technical preludes;
* Multiple comments (almost on each line);
* Unnecessary multiple pound and other signs.
All this makes code "dirty", hard to read and maintain. I'm just curious: who will read such preludes, comments?<br>
An obvious sample is the first version of dragon curve in R. I thought that contributor is for sure obsessed with pounds...<br>
Or trying to camouflage original code... Although original code has a lot of pounds too,
but RC contributor added even more! LOL See for yourself:
rstudio-pubs-static.s3.amazonaws o com/185483_0f31b11d2def43aea33658b5b7908cf3.html<br>
Team MEOW: Eric Lewis, Ricky Hardiyanto, Yanna Chen - CityTech. May 29, 2016<br>
BTW, it’s impossible to find who is the contributor of the first version of R.--[[User:AnatolV|AnatolV]]
: Probably not a great idea to make disparaging remarks about other peoples code. That being said, it's a public wiki. If there is code that is unidiomatic or messy, clean it up. Just be aware that some users are very protective of their contributions and coding styles.
: As far as who contributed the first R example, looks like it was [http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Werewolff519 Werewolff519]; see [http://rosettacode.org/mw/index.php?title=Dragon_curve&type=revision&diff=196234&oldid=195807 this revision] --[[User:Thundergnat|Thundergnat]] ([[User talk:Thundergnat|talk]]) 12:58, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
::TYVM Thundergnat! Now I can see: he attached solution to Perl with no comments. I did the same when I started here. LOL But later I've found it is useful to leave a short comment. I was hoping the contributor is one of the authors of the cited article. But, in general, it doesn't matter for me.
::I will continue discussion on my Talk page. (not today, I have too many logins) -- [[User:AnatolV|AnatolV]] ([[User talk:AnatolV|talk]])
::'''@Thundergnat:''' I have 2 issues with your suggestion to "clean it up": 1st, I prefer author or at least admin do it; 2nd, it is "eating" my logins. I did edited a few typos, wrong tag using, etc. But soon I've found: my (actually everybody but admins) logins are restricted. See my post on talk:Short Circuit page "Problems and a few suggestions".
==Hailstone sequence version 2 (& not ONLY)==
'''@Gerard Schildberger:'''
| |||