5 ms·

Semi-related: What do people think about if-else-if... chains vs nested simple if-else blocks? I have seen many cases on the job where someone writes a complex

Semi-related: What do people think about if-else-if... chains vs nested simple if-else blocks? I have seen many cases on the job where someone writes a complex if-else-if chain and then an oversight in their logic WRT the dependencies between conditions causes the wrong branch to be taken. I prefer the latter style of the ones I've put below, especially when the conditions are more complex. For me, it makes it easier to mentally picture the control flow. if(condition_a && condition_b){ do_thing_a(); } else if(condition_b){ do_thing_b(); } else { do_something_else(); } vs if(condition_a){ if(condition_b){ do_thing_a(); } else { do_thing_b(); } } else { do_something_else(); } Furthermore, I prefer functional languages where if-then-else is an expression with a mandatory else (or doing control flow via pattern matching with enforced exhaustiveness like you can get with GHC). I don't like surprises.

jahewson 11y ago
I don't think there's a general statement to be made about this. I have no problem reading both examples and actually prefer the first. But it depends on the what the specific logic is - some conditions are easy to understand, despite their size, others are small but subtly complex. I certainly wouldn't want to mandate writing code like your second example without considering the use case first - YMMV.
dcvuob 11y ago
Second example is very readable using Allman style: if( condition_a ) { if( condition_b ) { do_thing_a(); } else { do_thing_b(); } } else { do_something_else(); } Editor space is free, why not use it.
- alextgordon 11y ago
  Horizontal space is free, vertical space is not. The more lines that are visible on your screen, the less you have to keep in your working memory. Human memory is fragile, so you really don't want to rely on it. I can only fit 51 lines vertically (damn widescreen laptop) so that one snippet fills a good 1/3 of my screen. Personally I'd write that as if (condition_a) { if (condition_b) do_thing_a(); else do_thing_b(); } else { do_something_else(); }
  - dcvuob 11y ago
    The more lines that are visible on your screen, the less you have to keep in your working memory. Sure if you only saw a few lines at a time, then this might be a problem. But you can see 51 on a laptop. This is enough for almost all cases. And you can scroll if you need to look up something. If you stumble upon a case of multiple if statement that span several screens then no style is going to help you see it in full. In that rare case you might see a little more, at the expense of all code ever becoming less readable (if we assume Allman is more readable for the sake of this argument of course). If for some reason your code has more than, let's say >50% cases where something spans multiple screens and needs to be seen as a whole (code which should be refactored, but let's ignore that), then you might have an argument to use your style, in all other cases you're doing premature optimization of your coding style, so to speak.
Coding_Cat 11y ago
Thinking about it, I'd say the second one is better. I think it parse better in my mind as to what is meant. However I also always comment nested logic chains with their intent in plain language. I have made bugs in going from intent->complex logic to often, and I found that writing comments at each fork greatly reduces these errors as well as the odds of missing an edge case. e.g., I'd write "if(a) and not b" in plain English at the nested else statement, possibly followed by a "what & why" comment at the do_thing_b statement.
wting 11y ago
Kinda late but I want to point out these snippets have different behaviors: if A and B: .. elif B: .. vs if A and B: .. elif A and not B: .. I prefer flattening because enumeration makes it obvious what's different between the branches despite the code duplication. For example, three boolean conditions has 2^3 = 8 possible combinations. When nested this complexity is hidden but obviously apparent as a code smell when flattened. It also echoes Python's ethos that flat is better than nested.

jahewson 11y ago

I don't think there's a general statement to be made about this. I have no problem reading both examples and actually prefer the first. But it depends on the what the specific logic is - some conditions are easy to understand, despite their size, others are small but subtly complex. I certainly wouldn't want to mandate writing code like your second example without considering the use case first - YMMV.

dcvuob 11y ago

Second example is very readable using Allman style: if( condition_a ) { if( condition_b ) { do_thing_a(); } else { do_thing_b(); } } else { do_something_else(); } Editor space is free, why not use it.

alextgordon 11y ago
Horizontal space is free, vertical space is not. The more lines that are visible on your screen, the less you have to keep in your working memory. Human memory is fragile, so you really don't want to rely on it. I can only fit 51 lines vertically (damn widescreen laptop) so that one snippet fills a good 1/3 of my screen. Personally I'd write that as if (condition_a) { if (condition_b) do_thing_a(); else do_thing_b(); } else { do_something_else(); }
- dcvuob 11y ago
  The more lines that are visible on your screen, the less you have to keep in your working memory. Sure if you only saw a few lines at a time, then this might be a problem. But you can see 51 on a laptop. This is enough for almost all cases. And you can scroll if you need to look up something. If you stumble upon a case of multiple if statement that span several screens then no style is going to help you see it in full. In that rare case you might see a little more, at the expense of all code ever becoming less readable (if we assume Allman is more readable for the sake of this argument of course). If for some reason your code has more than, let's say >50% cases where something spans multiple screens and needs to be seen as a whole (code which should be refactored, but let's ignore that), then you might have an argument to use your style, in all other cases you're doing premature optimization of your coding style, so to speak.

Coding_Cat 11y ago

Thinking about it, I'd say the second one is better. I think it parse better in my mind as to what is meant. However I also always comment nested logic chains with their intent in plain language. I have made bugs in going from intent->complex logic to often, and I found that writing comments at each fork greatly reduces these errors as well as the odds of missing an edge case. e.g., I'd write "if(a) and not b" in plain English at the nested else statement, possibly followed by a "what & why" comment at the do_thing_b statement.

wting 11y ago

Kinda late but I want to point out these snippets have different behaviors: if A and B: .. elif B: .. vs if A and B: .. elif A and not B: .. I prefer flattening because enumeration makes it obvious what's different between the branches despite the code duplication. For example, three boolean conditions has 2^3 = 8 possible combinations. When nested this complexity is hidden but obviously apparent as a code smell when flattened. It also echoes Python's ethos that flat is better than nested.