3 ms·
Are we reading the same article? There is zero concern for syntax. The first point is literally what you said. Write functions with clear interfaces. If your f
by mike_hock 3y ago
Are we reading the same article? There is zero concern for syntax.
The first point is literally what you said. Write functions with clear interfaces. If your function doesn't handle None, make its argument type reflect that (Walrus instead of Option<Walrus>).
The second point is about performance. Hoist branches out of loops, and process batches so any constant cost is amortized over the batch. Is that even controversial?
> the author makes an effort to give their functions names such as "frobnicate"
Yes, and that's good, because it keeps the focus on his actual points rather than the minutiae of a contrived example.
- Tainnor 3y ago> Are we reading the same article? There is zero concern for syntax. By "syntactical" I mean "concerned with the surface level appearance of low-level code structure". > Yes, and that's good, because it keeps the focus on his actual points rather than the minutiae of a contrived example. Only if you think that guidelines about how to write code should be devoid of the context of the problem you're trying to solve. I happen to think that this is mostly wrong.
- mike_hock 3y agoYes, I think it's possible to have discussions on an abstract level and not everything has to be a case study.