4 ms·

Is this literate programming?

by jpnc 4y ago

sam_lowry_ 4y ago
It's been extensively discussed on twitter, and the general conclusion seems to be that yes, this particular snippet is good code.
- Freak_NL 4y ago
  The only thing that jumps out at me is this: if (percentage == 0) return […]; if (percentage > 0.0 && […] Can a double have a value that is larger than 0 but smaller or equal to 0.0? I would have expected '> 0' instead.
  - kadoban 4y ago
    In any language I can think of, 0 and 0.0 are the same, once you're comparing them against a double.
    - DoingIsLearning 4y ago
      Technically what is happening behind the scenes is that for most languages the compiler/interpreter will promote the integer to a double to avoid foot guns. Nevertheless integer comparisons with any kind of floating point is not a wise choice. The idiomatic way to compare a double would be to take into account whatever is the double precision epsilon for that language. Or just use the greater/less than like they have in the subsequent if statements in the original code snippet.
- LudwigNagasena 4y ago
  Discussed by whom? By people who deem every non-built-in data structure as "too clever" for maintenance?
- geraldwhen 4y ago
  It’s not, though. To confirm the method works you need to check every single comparison operator and value to ensure the range is bounded correctly. It’s code that stops you in your tracks. Pull request denied.
  - icoder 4y ago
    If that's the intended behaviour (having those boundaries and those results), how can you ever confirm that behaviour without checking them all?
    - doodlesdev 4y ago
      You could have one check such as if(percentage < 0 or percentage > 1) { // Throw error here } Also the checks in the if statements in the linked code are redundant since they simply disregard the previous check, they could simply check if percentage < x instead of checking it's within a range sincs the previous check already proved percentage to be > x - 1/10. To be fair though, this is the kind of code where "if it's stupid and it works, it's not stupid" applies perfectly. While I would make these changes if I had to approve a PR I wouldn't change this in a live codebase just for refactoring purposes, specially because there are better ways to show progress to a user than using Unicode characters, which I think is the real smell here.

Is this literate programming?

by jpnc 4y ago

Is this literate programming?

It's been extensively discussed on twitter, and the general conclusion seems to be that yes, this particular snippet is good code.

Freak_NL 4y ago
The only thing that jumps out at me is this: if (percentage == 0) return […]; if (percentage > 0.0 && […] Can a double have a value that is larger than 0 but smaller or equal to 0.0? I would have expected '> 0' instead.
- kadoban 4y ago
  In any language I can think of, 0 and 0.0 are the same, once you're comparing them against a double.
  - DoingIsLearning 4y ago
    Technically what is happening behind the scenes is that for most languages the compiler/interpreter will promote the integer to a double to avoid foot guns. Nevertheless integer comparisons with any kind of floating point is not a wise choice. The idiomatic way to compare a double would be to take into account whatever is the double precision epsilon for that language. Or just use the greater/less than like they have in the subsequent if statements in the original code snippet.
LudwigNagasena 4y ago
Discussed by whom? By people who deem every non-built-in data structure as "too clever" for maintenance?
geraldwhen 4y ago
It’s not, though. To confirm the method works you need to check every single comparison operator and value to ensure the range is bounded correctly. It’s code that stops you in your tracks. Pull request denied.
- icoder 4y ago
  If that's the intended behaviour (having those boundaries and those results), how can you ever confirm that behaviour without checking them all?
  - doodlesdev 4y ago
    You could have one check such as if(percentage < 0 or percentage > 1) { // Throw error here } Also the checks in the if statements in the linked code are redundant since they simply disregard the previous check, they could simply check if percentage < x instead of checking it's within a range sincs the previous check already proved percentage to be > x - 1/10. To be fair though, this is the kind of code where "if it's stupid and it works, it's not stupid" applies perfectly. While I would make these changes if I had to approve a PR I wouldn't change this in a live codebase just for refactoring purposes, specially because there are better ways to show progress to a user than using Unicode characters, which I think is the real smell here.