3 ms·

It's amazing how following good coding standards can make bugs go away. If anyone disagrees, I would suggest reading Joel Spolsky's article "Making Wrong Code

by jobu 13y ago

It's amazing how following good coding standards can make bugs go away. If anyone disagrees, I would suggest reading Joel Spolsky's article "Making Wrong Code Look Wrong": http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/Wrong.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/Wrong.html That article changed my perspective on coding standards. To your PSA, I would like to add: Never use the '!' operator at the beginning of a conditional. It's too easy to miss when reviewing or changing code, especially next to certain characters: if(!llama) { ... } This is a tiny bit more text, and so much safer for maintainers: if(llama == false) { ... }

nawitus 13y ago
I think the '!' is easy to spot when using a good monospaced font.
wting 13y ago
Now you have the bug occur if someone forgets an equal since this is always true: if (llama = false) So use Yoda conditionals instead: if (false == llama) Is that really an improvement over the original? As I've stated in my sibling reply, you are decreasing human readability for machine readability.
- wtetzner 13y ago
  Maybe if (llama != true) instead? Or maybe you just use a not function: if (not(llama))
- jobu 13y ago
  I have seen code that uses the Yoda style, but I think it's a bit overkill. Any C/C++ compiler I've used in the last several years will complain if you do an assignment in a conditional. (Unfortunately I've also seen projects that spew out a slew of compiler warnings under normal circumstances, so YMMV.)
mikestew 13y ago
I've taken to trying to make the ! stand out more: if( ! llama) { ... } I don't know that it's an improvement, and my personal jury is still out, but I currently hold that it's better than the risk of the single equals bug that another reply points out, or the Yoda conditional that is the suggested replacement.
jejones3141 13y ago
Sigh... I know of at least one coding standard that insists on not having bare Booleans in conditionals but instead code of this sort: if (foo == true && bar == false) ... and it's so prolix it drives me crazy (especially if combined with a naming convention for Booleans, so it's obvious from the name that the value in question is Boolean). I feel like I'm in an epistemology class. "If the truth-value of the proposition p is true...." If ! is easy to overlook, what about other unary operators? Perhaps we should write (0 - x) instead of -x, (0xffff ^ x) instead of ~x, and x[0] instead of *x.
Nemcue 13y ago
If you're having issues seeing the '!' you have a terrible font and/or syntax color theme.

by jobu 13y ago

nawitus 13y ago

I think the '!' is easy to spot when using a good monospaced font.

wting 13y ago

Now you have the bug occur if someone forgets an equal since this is always true: if (llama = false) So use Yoda conditionals instead: if (false == llama) Is that really an improvement over the original? As I've stated in my sibling reply, you are decreasing human readability for machine readability.

wtetzner 13y ago
Maybe if (llama != true) instead? Or maybe you just use a not function: if (not(llama))
jobu 13y ago
I have seen code that uses the Yoda style, but I think it's a bit overkill. Any C/C++ compiler I've used in the last several years will complain if you do an assignment in a conditional. (Unfortunately I've also seen projects that spew out a slew of compiler warnings under normal circumstances, so YMMV.)

mikestew 13y ago

I've taken to trying to make the ! stand out more: if( ! llama) { ... } I don't know that it's an improvement, and my personal jury is still out, but I currently hold that it's better than the risk of the single equals bug that another reply points out, or the Yoda conditional that is the suggested replacement.

jejones3141 13y ago

Sigh... I know of at least one coding standard that insists on not having bare Booleans in conditionals but instead code of this sort: if (foo == true && bar == false) ... and it's so prolix it drives me crazy (especially if combined with a naming convention for Booleans, so it's obvious from the name that the value in question is Boolean). I feel like I'm in an epistemology class. "If the truth-value of the proposition p is true...." If ! is easy to overlook, what about other unary operators? Perhaps we should write (0 - x) instead of -x, (0xffff ^ x) instead of ~x, and x[0] instead of *x.

Nemcue 13y ago

If you're having issues seeing the '!' you have a terrible font and/or syntax color theme.