Comments on: How to make your code completely unreadable with .NET 3.5 http://khason.net/blog/how-to-make-your-code-completely-unreadable-with-net-35/ Take care of the sense, and the sounds will take care of themselves. Fri, 18 May 2012 08:56:28 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: babylooneytunes http://khason.net/blog/how-to-make-your-code-completely-unreadable-with-net-35/comment-page-1/#comment-4113 babylooneytunes Thu, 30 Dec 2010 22:03:51 +0000 http://khason.net/blog/how-to-make-your-code-completely-unreadable-with-net-35/#comment-4113 Hi, I am new.This is my frist thread ...lol. say hi to everybody. Hi, I am new.This is my frist thread …lol.
say hi to everybody.

]]> By: Maynard D. Cooney http://khason.net/blog/how-to-make-your-code-completely-unreadable-with-net-35/comment-page-1/#comment-3755 Maynard D. Cooney Wed, 21 Apr 2010 19:00:52 +0000 http://khason.net/blog/how-to-make-your-code-completely-unreadable-with-net-35/#comment-3755 Nice blog you have... looking forward to read your next post Nice blog you have… looking forward to read your next post

]]> By: Why good programmer never write good programs | Tamir Khason - Just code http://khason.net/blog/how-to-make-your-code-completely-unreadable-with-net-35/comment-page-1/#comment-1749 Why good programmer never write good programs | Tamir Khason - Just code Thu, 01 Jan 2009 09:12:35 +0000 http://khason.net/blog/how-to-make-your-code-completely-unreadable-with-net-35/#comment-1749 [...] Here, one of visitors, begun a discussion about good and bad programmers. Here, I wrote about absolutely unnecessary and not relevant questions to good programmers. Someone things, that good programmers should write good programs. However, I want to interpose my objections to the statement. And this why. [...] [...] Here, one of visitors, begun a discussion about good and bad programmers. Here, I wrote about absolutely unnecessary and not relevant questions to good programmers. Someone things, that good programmers should write good programs. However, I want to interpose my objections to the statement. And this why. [...]

]]> By: Binding with Lambda expressions | Tamir Khason - Just code http://khason.net/blog/how-to-make-your-code-completely-unreadable-with-net-35/comment-page-1/#comment-1741 Binding with Lambda expressions | Tamir Khason - Just code Thu, 01 Jan 2009 09:06:54 +0000 http://khason.net/blog/how-to-make-your-code-completely-unreadable-with-net-35/#comment-1741 [...] personally, not a big fan of labdas. However, it looks like new blogger M. Orçun Topdağı is. He wrote three posts (1, 2, 3) [...] [...] personally, not a big fan of labdas. However, it looks like new blogger M. Orçun Topdağı is. He wrote three posts (1, 2, 3) [...]

]]> By: Niki http://khason.net/blog/how-to-make-your-code-completely-unreadable-with-net-35/comment-page-1/#comment-934 Niki Thu, 01 Jan 2009 08:29:05 +0000 http://khason.net/blog/how-to-make-your-code-completely-unreadable-with-net-35/#comment-934 <p>Your point seems to be, if a feature can be used to write code that's hard to understand, then the feature is bad. Is that right?</p> <p>Wouldn't it make more sense to learn those new programming language elements, and see how they can be used to make code more readable?</p> <p>BTW: Maybe you should have a look at languages that are usually regarded as "elegant", like Lisp, Python, Ruby, Haskell or ML. Guess what? They all have lambda expressions!</p> Your point seems to be, if a feature can be used to write code that's hard to understand, then the feature is bad. Is that right?

Wouldn't it make more sense to learn those new programming language elements, and see how they can be used to make code more readable?

BTW: Maybe you should have a look at languages that are usually regarded as "elegant", like Lisp, Python, Ruby, Haskell or ML. Guess what? They all have lambda expressions!

]]> By: jhunter http://khason.net/blog/how-to-make-your-code-completely-unreadable-with-net-35/comment-page-1/#comment-933 jhunter Thu, 01 Jan 2009 08:29:04 +0000 http://khason.net/blog/how-to-make-your-code-completely-unreadable-with-net-35/#comment-933 <p>I agree with you, I hate anonymous types.  I expect to frustrated when I start reading people's code in .net 3.5.</p> I agree with you, I hate anonymous types.  I expect to frustrated when I start reading people's code in .net 3.5.

]]> By: Tamir Khason http://khason.net/blog/how-to-make-your-code-completely-unreadable-with-net-35/comment-page-1/#comment-932 Tamir Khason Thu, 01 Jan 2009 08:29:03 +0000 http://khason.net/blog/how-to-make-your-code-completely-unreadable-with-net-35/#comment-932 <p>Niki, no it is not my statement. My statement is that we are studing developers to write bad code, by adding more and more unnessesery features to the programming language.</p> <p>In Python 3000, for example is was decided to remove lambdas from the language and replace them with anonymous delegates. Regarding Ruby, delegates works as block expressions. They are working very hard to add delegate support to the language += and -= expressions.</p> <p>So, are you really thinking , that lambdas are good? :)</p> Niki, no it is not my statement. My statement is that we are studing developers to write bad code, by adding more and more unnessesery features to the programming language.

In Python 3000, for example is was decided to remove lambdas from the language and replace them with anonymous delegates. Regarding Ruby, delegates works as block expressions. They are working very hard to add delegate support to the language += and -= expressions.

So, are you really thinking , that lambdas are good? :)

]]> By: Daily Dose of Links - 20071119 « Daily Geek Bits http://khason.net/blog/how-to-make-your-code-completely-unreadable-with-net-35/comment-page-1/#comment-931 Daily Dose of Links - 20071119 « Daily Geek Bits Thu, 01 Jan 2009 08:29:02 +0000 http://khason.net/blog/how-to-make-your-code-completely-unreadable-with-net-35/#comment-931 <p>Pingback from  Daily Dose of Links - 20071119 « Daily Geek Bits</p> Pingback from  Daily Dose of Links – 20071119 &laquo; Daily Geek Bits

]]> By: Angelos Petropoulos http://khason.net/blog/how-to-make-your-code-completely-unreadable-with-net-35/comment-page-1/#comment-930 Angelos Petropoulos Thu, 01 Jan 2009 08:29:01 +0000 http://khason.net/blog/how-to-make-your-code-completely-unreadable-with-net-35/#comment-930 <p>I agree with the point you are trying to make. My feelings are reflected by this post on LINQ (the reason anonymous types and lambda expressions were implemented) that I made only a few days ago ...</p> <p><a rel="nofollow" target="_new" href="http://www.angelosp.com/blog/post/TechEd-Wisdom-%e2%80%93-Still-not-convinced-about-LINQ.aspx" rel="nofollow">www.angelosp.com/.../TechEd-Wisdom-%e2%80%93-Still-not-convinced-about-LINQ.aspx</a></p> I agree with the point you are trying to make. My feelings are reflected by this post on LINQ (the reason anonymous types and lambda expressions were implemented) that I made only a few days ago …

http://www.angelosp.com/…/TechEd-Wisdom-%e2%80%93-Still-not-convinced-about-LINQ.aspx

]]> By: Niki http://khason.net/blog/how-to-make-your-code-completely-unreadable-with-net-35/comment-page-1/#comment-929 Niki Thu, 01 Jan 2009 08:29:00 +0000 http://khason.net/blog/how-to-make-your-code-completely-unreadable-with-net-35/#comment-929 <p>I just have to reinstall VS2008 because I keep getting weird "unexpected errors" (very helpful error message, by the way. thank you, microsoft!). So I have a few minutes to write down a reply:</p> <p>> Niki, no it is not my statement. My statement is that we are studing developers to write bad code, by adding more and more unnessesery features to the programming language.</p> <p>That's your conclusion, but I still don't see how you get to that conclusion. Yes, of course, the feature is kind of redundant, but not more redundant than for-loops, foreach-loops, do-while-loops, events, switch-case or properties are. Yes, there is potential for misuse, but IMHO you can do far more damage e.g. with events, which can lead to serious spagetti code.</p> <p>I see two possible conclusions out of this, either:</p> <p>a) Use a minimalist language like Scheme, that does not have all those redundant features. I like Scheme, but unfortunately I'm quite alone with that, most companies seem to prefer "rich" languages. (And guess what: Yes, Scheme does have lambdas...)</p> <p>b) Teach your programmers to use the features of the language wisely, not to obscure the meaning of the code they're writing, but to clarify it.</p> <p>> In Python 3000, for example is was decided to remove lambdas from the language and replace them with anonymous delegates. </p> <p>I think I read a statement from Guido van Rossum (the man behind Python) that lambdas will stay in the language, but that might be outdated. Anyway, the reason why there's discussion about lambdas in Python are largely syntactic: they simply don't fit into the  indentation-oriented block structure. That's not a problem that in C#.</p> <p>> So, are you really thinking , that lambdas are good? :)</p> <p>Yes, of course I do. Why? For one thing, I have some mathematical background, so I've found lambda calculus intuitive long before anyone thought C# might get lambda expressions some day. Also, I know a bit of higher-order-programming, and know how much it can simplify development if used correctly. And I can think of code like this:</p> <p>purchases.SortBy(p => p.Price);</p> <p>I don't see how I could make this code any clearer. In .NET 1.1 (or in C++), I would have a static function like "GetPrice" somewhere far aways form the SortBy-call, which is of course bad because it destroys code locality. In C# 2.0, I could to do something similar with an anonymous delegate, which does the same thing, but makes the code hard to read, because it is far more verbose, and also less flexible, because it cannot be used as an expression. (I am hoping that anonymous delegates will be removed in some future version of C#.)</p> I just have to reinstall VS2008 because I keep getting weird "unexpected errors" (very helpful error message, by the way. thank you, microsoft!). So I have a few minutes to write down a reply:

> Niki, no it is not my statement. My statement is that we are studing developers to write bad code, by adding more and more unnessesery features to the programming language.

That's your conclusion, but I still don't see how you get to that conclusion. Yes, of course, the feature is kind of redundant, but not more redundant than for-loops, foreach-loops, do-while-loops, events, switch-case or properties are. Yes, there is potential for misuse, but IMHO you can do far more damage e.g. with events, which can lead to serious spagetti code.

I see two possible conclusions out of this, either:

a) Use a minimalist language like Scheme, that does not have all those redundant features. I like Scheme, but unfortunately I'm quite alone with that, most companies seem to prefer "rich" languages. (And guess what: Yes, Scheme does have lambdas…)

b) Teach your programmers to use the features of the language wisely, not to obscure the meaning of the code they're writing, but to clarify it.

> In Python 3000, for example is was decided to remove lambdas from the language and replace them with anonymous delegates.

I think I read a statement from Guido van Rossum (the man behind Python) that lambdas will stay in the language, but that might be outdated. Anyway, the reason why there's discussion about lambdas in Python are largely syntactic: they simply don't fit into the  indentation-oriented block structure. That's not a problem that in C#.

> So, are you really thinking , that lambdas are good? :)

Yes, of course I do. Why? For one thing, I have some mathematical background, so I've found lambda calculus intuitive long before anyone thought C# might get lambda expressions some day. Also, I know a bit of higher-order-programming, and know how much it can simplify development if used correctly. And I can think of code like this:

purchases.SortBy(p => p.Price);

I don't see how I could make this code any clearer. In .NET 1.1 (or in C++), I would have a static function like "GetPrice" somewhere far aways form the SortBy-call, which is of course bad because it destroys code locality. In C# 2.0, I could to do something similar with an anonymous delegate, which does the same thing, but makes the code hard to read, because it is far more verbose, and also less flexible, because it cannot be used as an expression. (I am hoping that anonymous delegates will be removed in some future version of C#.)

]]>