|
Message Closed
modified 18-Aug-15 18:12pm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
More satisfying to post in an "improper" forum. Stuffed Shirt proper? 
The fredster
|
|
|
|
|
System.Runtime.Serialization sucks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whehe; the compiler accepts it - what trouble are you having with it, and what makes it unacceptable to you?
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
I have yet to find a compiler that has to support and maintain the code it compiles.
|
|
|
|
|
Visual Studio 2013 for windows 8.1 apps
|
|
|
|
|
And what does that have to do with what I said??
|
|
|
|
|
That's the compiler and libraries used for the code.
|
|
|
|
|
Considering I wasn't commenting on that at all, your post makes no sense.
I was merely commenting that the compiler is never responsible for supporting the application, YOU are.
|
|
|
|
|
I see yes the context of how someone takes a sentence is important.
The code is flawless, again the question was about coding practices.
|
|
|
|
|
When I commented on this branch of the thread, it wasn't addressed to you.
|
|
|
|
|
Its valid code.
Coding practices is the topic.
|
|
|
|
|
Colborne_Greg wrote: Coding practices is the topic
Coding practices are a form of communication to the next developer to assist them in their understanding of the code. There are no absolutes -- a syntax acceptable to one group might not be acceptable to another group. In general though, use of an oddball syntax in one place in the code is a poor practice.
So, the only realistic answer to your question is "it depends". It depends on whether that's the common syntax used throughout the rest of the code, or an oddball one.
Colborne_Greg wrote: Its valid code
I have three words by way of countering this line of thought: Obfuscated C Contest.
We can program with only 1's, but if all you've got are zeros, you've got nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
I keep a common structure, thank you for a straight answer.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't see any problem with it, as a matter of fact it actually reminds me of C++ member declaration.
To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems - Homer Simpson
----
Our heads are round so our thoughts can change direction - Francis Picabia
|
|
|
|
|
|
"It is a vessel of fertilizer, and none may abide its strength."
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
Refrain for abusive comments
|
|
|
|
|
Refrain from abusive code.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
At a first glance, I find this confusing. In particular because the DataMember attribute actually accepts a constructor parameter.
- So if I set the constructor parameter, which field does it apply to?
- Likewise, if you want to switch out serializers and use something like Protocol Buffers this syntax simply won't translate. You would need to break out each one as the constructor is required.
- On top of this all, there's a mixing of types. I'm not a big fan of the "multi-declaration" syntax, especially when it doesn't save any actual lines like this example. But there are some cases where it is useful. That stated, if you're mixing types on the "multi-declarations", it's time split them out.
I wouldn't call this "unacceptable" practice, especially in the context of firing someone over this. I would however call this "non-standard" and "confusing" and ask that it be changed.
|
|
|
|
|
This is what it looked like before
<System.Runtime.Serialization.DataMember>
Private mLastUpdated As DateTime
<System.Runtime.Serialization.DataMember>
Private mLastUpdatedBy As String
<System.Runtime.Serialization.DataMember>
Private mClearanceRequired As Int64
<System.Runtime.Serialization.DataMember>
Private mClearanceIsRequired As Boolean
The first example I wrote, stands on in the document, where writing datamember so many times with the word private seems to be a waste of space.
|
|
|
|
|
So to clarify, you're saying that "saving space" is more important than "providing clarity" and "avoiding bugs"?
If you're trying to save space why are you:
1. Using Private at all? That's the default, just take it out.
2. Using that little "m" in the prefix. Why not just lower-case the first letter? ("lastUpdated")
3. Using full words when you could abbreviate everything? ("lstUpd")
4. Not importing the System.Runtime.Serialization on the file? Then you could just type "<datamember>"!
If "saving space" is really important, why aren't you doing it everywhere?
And at the end of the day, all of this code is functionally equivalent, right? So it all compiles to the same IL.
I'm just not understanding the "save space" argument here.
|
|
|
|
|
The word Private indents the code for white space.
The m stands for Member some companies use an underscore _ instead, each data member has a corresponding property that exposes the data member with extra code for validation, each of these properties implement an interface.
The intent is white space and readability not saving space.
Importing a class file is improper name resolution
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
