|
I've been looking at some code today written by a former slave. Now instead of using member variables in methods, dufus decided to pass them all around the shop as arguments to STATIC methods so we get crapola like this:
class DoofusCode {
private int first;
private String second;
public void Method()
{
if (IsFirst(first))
UpdateSecond(out second);
}
private static bool IsFirst(int first)
{
return answer;
}
private static void IsFirst(out String second)
{
second = "Second";
}
}
Go Optimisers! Go!
Panic, Chaos, Destruction.
My work here is done.
or "Drink. Get drunk. Fall over." - P O'H
|
|
|
|
|
if the class members aren't static and the methods are, what do you want your slaves to do? anyway, if you don't educate and whip them enough, it is your problem, you're the master after all.
|
|
|
|
|
There is no need for the methods to be static. Numpty made them static to get rid of the build warnings that the methods didn't reference any member variables.
Panic, Chaos, Destruction.
My work here is done.
or "Drink. Get drunk. Fall over." - P O'H
|
|
|
|
|
Nagy Vilmos wrote: the build warnings that the methods didn't reference any member variables
Interesting. While I always build my C# apps at warning level 4, I've never seen such a warning, and I seem unable to get one on purpose either.
|
|
|
|
|
I would guess the warning comes from some 3rd party tool like Resharper.
|
|
|
|
|
|
explicitly making a method static can be useful as it turns every access to an instance member into an error.
|
|
|
|
|
And reentrant code is happy code.
I'd blame it on the Brain farts.. But let's be honest, it really is more like a Methane factory between my ears some days then it is anything else...
|
|
|
|
|
Well those tools are normally intelligent enough to generate such warnings only for private methods. I can't think of a situation where a private method which doesn't access any member variables shouldn't be static (except temporarily while developing). And even if there are, you can still ignore it .
|
|
|
|
|
Funny, I have the opposite viewpoint. I regard static members of any type - including such methods - as a code smell. If a method has requires no access to an instance's state, is it really a method at all, are we really doing object-oriented programming here?
Gilad Bracha's Room 101[^] has some excellent posts on the problems of static. Particular, look for "Constructors considered harmful" (they're a form of static method), and "Cutting out static".
|
|
|
|
|
Rob Grainger wrote: If a method has requires no access to an instance's state, is it really a method at all, are we really doing object-oriented programming here?
Ah, ladies and gentlemen, we have a purist in our midst!
One of the things OOP enthusiasts forget is that one of the purposes of classes (as opposed to objects) is to organize behavior. A method that does not reference an instance state might still be perfectly appropriate if it implements a behavior relevant to the class. The method might implement an operation or perform a calculation for objects of the class type that depends solely on arguments to the operation.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
He's right though.
Although statics have their place, they are so frequently abused (a "lesser goto" seems a reasonable analogy) that instinctively associating their prescence in a codebase with a "smell" (particularly when said code was written by someone lacking experience) is perfectly natural.
Beginner beware, as ever.
Anna ![Rose | [Rose]](https://codeproject.global.ssl.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/rose.gif)
Tech Blog | Visual Lint
"Why would anyone prefer to wield a weapon that takes both hands at once, when they could use a lighter (and obviously superior) weapon that allows you to wield multiple ones at a time, and thus supports multi-paradigm carnage?"
|
|
|
|
|
Anna-Jayne Metcalfe wrote: particularly when said code was written by someone lacking experience
That explains why my point of view is biased. We don't have anyone 'lacking experience' in my group. The original comment struck me as a generalization that I don't usually see. If a member or an entire class is static, there's usually a good reason for it.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
Same here; however we do still find we've used it where we probably shouldn't from time to time. Fortunately, we're not shy about aggressive refactoring so it's usually no big deal to change it when required.
Anna
Tech Blog | Visual Lint
"Why would anyone prefer to wield a weapon that takes both hands at once, when they could use a lighter (and obviously superior) weapon that allows you to wield multiple ones at a time, and thus supports multi-paradigm carnage?"
|
|
|
|
|
Anna-Jayne Metcalfe wrote: we're not shy about aggressive refactoring
Anna? Shy? Pshaw  .
Seriously, though, that's one of the things I'm appreciating more and more using C# and .NET. The metadata available to the IDE enables some seriously cool features that lower the barriers to frequent refactoring.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
Gary Wheeler wrote: Anna? Shy? Pshaw
Believe it or not it still happens occasionally. Put me in an unfamiliar environment where I don't know anyone and I still clam up a bit too much for my liking.
Gary Wheeler wrote: Seriously, though, that's one of the things I'm appreciating more and more using C# and .NET. The metadata available to the IDE enables some seriously cool features that lower the barriers to frequent refactoring.
I can imagine. I still prefer C++ though (particularly with the 0x bits added in - the old girl just got a turbocharge!).
Anna
Tech Blog | Visual Lint
"Why would anyone prefer to wield a weapon that takes both hands at once, when they could use a lighter (and obviously superior) weapon that allows you to wield multiple ones at a time, and thus supports multi-paradigm carnage?"
|
|
|
|
|
Gary Wheeler wrote: If a member or an entire class is static,
All inner classes are static in C# - no complaints about them? (Java inner classes may instance-based or static).
So not point in considering static methods evil.
While the hint purpose primary is to point into discrepancy in the design ("did you mean that? Maybe you had something else in mind?"), the static methods would be slightly better optimised in runtime too.
|
|
|
|
|
Thank-you AJ!
I take the view that static should be avoided, but there are times were expedience allows them.
Panic, Chaos, Destruction.
My work here is done.
or "Drink. Get drunk. Fall over." - P O'H
|
|
|
|
|
Anytime.
Anna
Tech Blog | Visual Lint
"Why would anyone prefer to wield a weapon that takes both hands at once, when they could use a lighter (and obviously superior) weapon that allows you to wield multiple ones at a time, and thus supports multi-paradigm carnage?"
|
|
|
|
|
Makes you realise the utility of code reviews.
At least then someone gets to ask why its been done that way.
|
|
|
|
|
"More stuff" is trademarked? 
|
|
|
|
|
You messed up the code.
Shouldnt the second IsFirst method be called UpdateSecond ?
|
|
|
|
|
I think the "Create New Method" refactoring tool provided by VS automatically makes a method static if the code you selected to be in the body of the method did not use any non-static member variables.
I have occasionally used this "pattern" if IsFirst contains behavior that is generally useful.
|
|
|
|
|
While working with a client to help them clean up their code I found this little gem. They absolutely never knew string.Format existed 
string sql = "select * from table where id={0} and date={1}";
string cmdText = sql.replace("{0}", id.Tostring())
.replace("{1}", DateTime.Now.ToShortDateString());
I know the language. I've read a book. - _Madmatt
|
|
|
|
|
In-code SQL statement is much bigger horror than lack of using String.Format IMHO
modified 19-Nov-18 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
