Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!mx05.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Daniele Futtorovic <da.futt.news@laposte-dot-net.invalid>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject: Re: About java program.
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 16:42:31 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <kpsfn7$k9k$1@dont-email.me>
References: <324f929f-772e-4004-81e1-6b454cdae794@googlegroups.com> <b24an6FlpvpU1@mid.individual.net> <UoednTl5R618JiDMnZ2dnUVZ8iadnZ2d@bt.com> <b263siF2vkkU1@mid.individual.net> <uBDvt.60965$5i1.39234@newsfe15.iad> <ILKdnZ-vg53OjiLMnZ2dnUVZ7tmdnZ2d@bt.com> <19wnriq53qxel.u9rt8wy6z52g.dlg@40tude.net> <kpnleo$7os$1@dont-email.me> <kpo1dr$cji$1@dont-email.me> <rK3wt.42579$f_1.22147@newsfe05.iad>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 14:37:27 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx05.eternal-september.org; posting-host="123b9be74c86173b128748477a8dfb8e"; logging-data="20788"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/yILL9oZEq0SUZpeT6IX7z"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6
In-Reply-To: <rK3wt.42579$f_1.22147@newsfe05.iad>
Cancel-Lock: sha1:7W2xprt6TNhYEX69ZmVIyeVcdPU=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:24471

On 18/06/2013 22:50, Arved Sandstrom allegedly wrote:
> <snip />
> See my answer to Eric, all this is just ridiculing reasonable
> programming practices.
> 
> Even given Robert's example where the NPE-safe equals() is wrapped in a
> method that constrains the type of object being compared to, it may not
> be expected or acceptable that the String is null. So perhaps you do
> want to check for that, maybe with Apache StringUtils.isBlank().
> 
> Sure, the contrived absurd examples are retarded; so is the mockery of
> defensive programming. Oh well, there's a reason why most software
> projects still fail or go vastly over budget.

I'm all for defensive programming, but I think that there's a limit
where it can be on the verge of silliness, and that that limit has been
grazed here.

Less-than-bright programmers IMO cannot be a justification for crossing
that line; less-than-bright programmers have more ways to mess things up
than you could possibly ever guard against. "Do not underestimate the
ingenuity of complete fools", as the saying goes.

And for me, there is an additional aspect: if a piece of code does
something simple, something basic, then I will want it to be short, and
vice-versa. Verbosity of code, to me, should hold a first-glance
indication of the complexity of the algorithm. In other words: be terse
IFF it's basic, be verbose IFF it's not.

Perhaps your mileage does vary. No beef with that. Just throwing in my
two cents.

-- 
DF.