[OT] Was: totally satisfied :D

[Nick Sabalausky]

On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 22:47:58 -0700
"H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh at quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:

[...]
> 
> As soon as you start having a whole bunch of code at different levels
> of abstraction mixed together, you know it's time to split them up
> into separate functions, 'cos chances are you'll need to use each
> piece independently one day.
> 

Yea, I feel the same way: Code should operate at one level of
abstraction. At least ideally. I don't always adhere hard-and-fast to
it either because sometimes "getting it done" is more important than
"getting it perfect" (not to say that excuses *really* bad
enterprisey code). And sometimes you *can't* stick to one level due to
performance or language limitations (depending on the language). But
whenever reasonably possible, the rule of thumb: One level of
abstraction per function.

Along similar lines, there's another rule-of-thumb that I actually did
pick up in college (and oddly enough, from the "Let's teach
first-time beginners OOP, ie code architecture, before
flow-of-execution" instructor): If a function is more than one
screenful, it's probably too long.

Now obviously that can't and shouldn't be used as a hard-and-fast rule,
but I've found it a sensible rough guideline. Although I'm much more
relaxed about it now than I used to be...and even *moreso* now
that I'm on one of these annoying half-height short-screens, erm, I
mean "widescreen" ;)


> 
> [...]
> > 
> > What really gets me is that these are the sorts of things that are
> > harped on in chapter 1 of just about any decent "intro to
> > programming" book. So where did these people even learn to code in
> > the first place?
> 
> Probably from a youtube video on how to write your own lame Flash
> game. :-P  OK, I'm being a bit harsh. But it's hard not to be cynical
> when you've seen the kind of code that passes for "enterprise
> software" these days.
> 

Maybe it's just because I'm just beyond the snapping point, too, but I
don't think it's possible to be too harsh on such code, or anything
involving Flash ;)


> > (Well, except for the handful of students, and I could always tell
> > which ones they were, who were from the class of Mrs. "Let's Teach
> > OOP *Before* Basic Flow Of Execution". Those poor students couldn't
> > write *any* code, let alone good or bad code. I felt bad for them.) 
> 
> Speaking of students who couldn't code...  I used to give out
> "sympathy marks" for struggling students. Y'know, their code was so
> bad, like code that obviously didn't compile or work, or code with
> comments written in a way that suggested the student thought that if
> they pleaded hard enough verbally the computer might *just* do what
> they wanted it to do -- they had to get a failing mark, but I tried
> to find excuses to not give them an outright zero. But one time,
> after marking a bunch of 15-20 page assignments (complete with intro,
> description, code, test results, etc.), I came across a submission
> consisting of a single sheet of paper *hand-written* on a single
> side.  I was boggled for a good moment.  It was like... I was trying
> not to give anyone an outright zero but she gave me no choice,
> y'know?  What was the point of handing that piece of paper if she
> wasn't even going to make the effort of using the lab *printer*, for
> crying out loud.
> 

Ouch. Yea.

I think I actually got a sympathy "pass" in German 101. I barely
scraped by with a "D-" overall, but if you went strictly by the numbers
and class rules it really should have been an F. I think she knew I was
at least trying and struggling though.

Ironically, the only reason I even took it was because I was having
trouble getting through the school's "4 semesters of the same foreign
language" requirement when I went with Japanese. Little did I know
German would be *far* harder. "Oh, yea, go with German - it's the
closest language to English!" Yea, I think that's actually what made it
so hard ;) That, and gendered words.