4 ms·
It wasn't designed for any other display. You can pretty much treat 128 as a symbol and leave it as that. Until you have more than two of those 190-line progr
by jxy 6y ago
It wasn't designed for any other display. You can pretty much treat 128 as a symbol and leave it as that. Until you have more than two of those 190-line programs that target different displays, there's no point of refactoring it. ---my guess
- DavidSJ 6y agoSure, but that’s an extremely shortsighted assumption. Engineering projects change scope over time. Maybe that particular arbitrary decision won’t change, but there must be 1,000 other decisions, some of which might be revisited at some point. There’s no need to artificially handicap yourself for zero benefit in return. Never mind that you’re introducing the possibility for bugs: the compiler would catch if you type the wrong symbol name, but not if you type 129 accidentally. And anyone reading or maintaining that code now has several additional needless WTFs they’ll encounter in the course of making sense of it.
- magicalhippo 6y agoThere's two aspects here. First, "wasn't designed for" and "the future" usually means changes will happen. But more importantly, by giving it a name the code is more self-documenting. New and old programmers don't have to figure out why 128, or if 128 is right or not in this bit of code.