4 ms·

This could easily be remedied by our editors offering a keystroke to inline the function definition in a smaller font and different colour so that we may read i

• flukus 7y ago
  If we need more complicated tooling then the code is obviously less readable x.startswith version. Wrapping simple functionality like this inside "self documenting" functions is the bane of my existence when doing maintenance. Not only is the code less clear when you have to step into or peek through a myriad of micro functions but when you need to change them you have to analyse every code path to make sure the change is supposed to affect them all and that quickly becomes an exponential problem. So much of this is cargo culting attempts to keep methods short without understanding why long methods are a problem in the first place. That problem is the amount of state you have to juggle mentally, short abstractions like this that don't eliminate that state, so they create no benefit and the cost of obfuscating the code.
  • usrusr 7y ago
    Of course in real life maintenance coding, your journey will not be finished with a nice .startsWith("foo"), instead you encounter .startsWith(FOO) and can still count yourself lucky if you find FOO defined as "bar" (because $reasons) in a way that does not allow principle of maximum surprise redefinitions somewhere else. All for getting a somewhat reliable understanding of what the trivial entry point line does when trying to understand code downstream in the control flow.