3 ms·

"public static void" has zero chance of containing errors. If you make a typo, it won't compile. It's not code, it's just "stuff". It doesn't translate to code.

"public static void" has zero chance of containing errors. If you make a typo, it won't compile. It's not code, it's just "stuff". It doesn't translate to code. It doesn't "do" anything. It is verbosity. It's less harmful than some other instances because as you note it's extremely unlikely to cause bugs, but it's still noise that detracts from readability by obscuring the code that's actually relevant to the task at hand. Would you rather debug regexps, or java code? Which is easier to work with? If the regexp is expressing a concept that would otherwise take 20 lines of ad-hoc string processing in Java, I'll take the regexp.

bumblebird 17y ago
That's why I said "Agree to disagree". If I'm looking at code, the "public static void" doesn't detract from readability at all. I would much rather see "public static void" than some new 'less verbose' &$%||foo|| stuff I have to look up. I find it much easier to read words than characters. It's a wonder anything works in some of these new 'unverbose' languages, where a 'concept' is a single character, and a single char typo can mean you've suddenly got a bug you have to go find.
- staunch 17y ago
  Verbose: 1 : containing more words than necessary : wordy <a verbose reply>; also : impaired by wordiness <a verbose style> 2 : given to wordiness <a verbose orator> The word has a definition and you're either ignoring it to suit your point of view, or you don't know what it means. If you want to argue that there are good kinds of verbosity and bad kinds that's fine, but don't try to make up your own definition and expect anyone to buy it.
  - bumblebird 17y ago
    In the realm of programming, I consider 'word' to mean a unit of code. I agree though, it's perhaps not the best word to use. Use what you enjoy using though. But please don't buy the FUD about verbosity.

bumblebird 17y ago

That's why I said "Agree to disagree". If I'm looking at code, the "public static void" doesn't detract from readability at all. I would much rather see "public static void" than some new 'less verbose' &$%||foo|| stuff I have to look up. I find it much easier to read words than characters. It's a wonder anything works in some of these new 'unverbose' languages, where a 'concept' is a single character, and a single char typo can mean you've suddenly got a bug you have to go find.

staunch 17y ago
Verbose: 1 : containing more words than necessary : wordy <a verbose reply>; also : impaired by wordiness <a verbose style> 2 : given to wordiness <a verbose orator> The word has a definition and you're either ignoring it to suit your point of view, or you don't know what it means. If you want to argue that there are good kinds of verbosity and bad kinds that's fine, but don't try to make up your own definition and expect anyone to buy it.
- bumblebird 17y ago
  In the realm of programming, I consider 'word' to mean a unit of code. I agree though, it's perhaps not the best word to use. Use what you enjoy using though. But please don't buy the FUD about verbosity.