Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #11232
| Date | 2012-01-11 10:03 -0800 |
|---|---|
| From | Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> |
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.java.programmer |
| Subject | Re: Curious compiler warning |
| References | (2 earlier) <jeisjs$4k4$1@speranza.aioe.org> <jeiu63$es3$1@news.albasani.net> <KUcPq.69975$Dr1.36221@newsfe08.iad> <jek2kn$i1b$1@speranza.aioe.org> <jek824$sqv$1@news.albasani.net> |
| Message-ID | <O7adnV3zzsd9U5DSnZ2dnUVZ_oOdnZ2d@earthlink.com> (permalink) |
On 1/11/2012 6:58 AM, Lew wrote:
...
> "Readability" is such a subjective term. Someone who knows C, C++, C#,
> Java or certain other languages might find 'x[i++] = y[j++]" perfectly
> readable. Someone not familiar with these programming languages might not.
I am familiar with C and C++. In the case of C, I've led a compiler
implementation project. I fully understand that expression.
It seems less obvious to me than it would written out as three
statements. Just as I like methods with a single clear purpose, I prefer
statements that have a single clear purpose such as "copy an element
from y to x", or "increment i".
> If your observation that such expressions has any evidence to back it up
> it's a good argument for something. Maybe not for changing the potency
> of the auto-inc/decrement operator but for hiring better-trained
> programmers, but for something. Assuming the evidence sustains the
> observation.
>
> If you have a hard time understanding that expression and you call
> yourself a Java programmer, there's a disconnect.
>
Fortunately, I don't care about being a Java programmer, or a C
programmer, or any other qualified sort of programmer. I'm just a
programmer. For my purposes, writing simple, obvious code in whatever
language I happen to be using is far more important than showing off my
understanding of the JLS.
The JLS itself agrees with me on this: "It is recommended that code not
rely crucially on this specification. Code is usually clearer when each
expression contains at most one side effect, as its outermost operation,
and when code does not depend on exactly which exception arises as a
consequence of the left-to-right evaluation of expressions."
[http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jls/third_edition/html/expressions.html#15.7]
The block:
{
x[i] = y[i];
i++;
j++;
}
follows that recommendation. Squishing all three side effects into one
statement does not.
I would go against a JLS recommendation about how to use the language
only if I had a strong positive reason to do so. That is especially the
case when it is arguing for simplicity, which I would prefer anyway.
Patricia
Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Curious compiler warning Novice <novice@example..com> - 2012-01-11 01:51 +0000
Re: Curious compiler warning Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2012-01-10 18:10 -0800
Re: Curious compiler warning glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-01-11 02:36 +0000
Re: Curious compiler warning Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2012-01-10 19:03 -0800
Re: Curious compiler warning glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-01-11 07:50 +0000
Re: Curious compiler warning Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2012-01-10 23:57 -0800
Re: Curious compiler warning Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2012-01-11 05:47 -0400
Re: Curious compiler warning glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-01-11 13:25 +0000
Re: Curious compiler warning Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2012-01-11 06:58 -0800
Re: Curious compiler warning Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2012-01-11 07:01 -0800
Re: Curious compiler warning Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2012-01-11 10:03 -0800
Re: Curious compiler warning Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2012-01-11 23:30 -0800
Re: Curious compiler warning Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-01-11 18:10 -0800
Re: Curious compiler warning Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2012-01-11 23:32 -0800
Re: Curious compiler warning Leif Roar Moldskred <leifm@dimnakorr.com> - 2012-01-12 01:44 -0600
Re: Curious compiler warning Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2012-01-12 07:42 -0800
Re: Curious compiler warning Leif Roar Moldskred <leifm@dimnakorr.com> - 2012-01-12 10:51 -0600
Re: Curious compiler warning Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2012-01-12 07:50 -0800
Re: Curious compiler warning Leif Roar Moldskred <leifm@dimnakorr.com> - 2012-01-12 10:54 -0600
Re: Curious compiler warning Wanja Gayk <brixomatic@yahoo.com> - 2012-01-21 12:52 +0100
Re: Curious compiler warning Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-01-12 11:51 -0800
Re: Curious compiler warning Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2012-01-12 20:58 -0800
Re: Curious compiler warning "Gavino" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2012-01-11 20:05 +0100
Re: Curious compiler warning Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2012-01-12 07:47 -0800
Re: Curious compiler warning Wanja Gayk <brixomatic@yahoo.com> - 2012-01-21 12:52 +0100
Re: Curious compiler warning Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2012-01-21 12:13 -0800
Re: Curious compiler warning Novice <novice@example..com> - 2012-01-11 04:55 +0000
Re: Curious compiler warning Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2012-01-10 21:46 -0800
Re: Curious compiler warning glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-01-11 07:55 +0000
Re: Curious compiler warning Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2012-01-11 01:35 -0800
Re: Curious compiler warning "Gavino" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2012-01-11 20:05 +0100
Re: Curious compiler warning Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-01-11 18:18 -0800
Re: Curious compiler warning Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2012-01-12 07:55 -0800
Re: Curious compiler warning Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-01-12 11:59 -0800
Re: Curious compiler warning Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2012-01-13 00:02 +0000
Re: Curious compiler warning Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2012-01-12 16:11 -0800
Re: Curious compiler warning Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2012-01-13 01:31 +0000
Re: Curious compiler warning Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2012-01-11 18:26 -0800
Re: Curious compiler warning Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2012-01-11 19:01 -0800
Re: Curious compiler warning Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2012-01-11 23:23 -0500
Re: Curious compiler warning Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2012-01-12 08:00 -0800
Re: Curious compiler warning Wanja Gayk <brixomatic@yahoo.com> - 2012-01-21 12:52 +0100
Re: Curious compiler warning Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2012-01-12 07:50 -0800
Re: Curious compiler warning Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-01-11 18:14 -0800
Re: Curious compiler warning Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2012-01-12 08:05 -0800
Re: Curious compiler warning Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-01-12 12:02 -0800
Re: Curious compiler warning Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2012-01-10 21:11 -0500
Re: Curious compiler warning Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2012-01-10 18:17 -0800
Re: Curious compiler warning bugbear <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> - 2012-01-11 16:10 +0000
Re: Curious compiler warning Lars Enderin <lars.enderin@telia.com> - 2012-01-11 20:45 +0100
Re: Curious compiler warning Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2012-01-12 08:09 -0800
Re: Curious compiler warning Jussi Piitulainen <jpiitula@ling.helsinki.fi> - 2012-01-12 18:14 +0200
Re: Curious compiler warning Wanja Gayk <brixomatic@yahoo.com> - 2012-01-21 12:52 +0100
Re: Curious compiler warning David Lamb <dalamb@cs.queensu.ca> - 2012-01-21 09:12 -0500
Re: Curious compiler warning Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-01-11 18:21 -0800
Re: Curious compiler warning Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2012-01-12 08:08 -0800
Re: Eclipse 3.7.1 compiler warning v_borchert@despammed.com (Volker Borchert) - 2012-01-11 21:10 +0000
csiph-web