|
Oh please. Your way might be slightly more elegant, but it is neither more robust, nor faster. You haven't fixed anything, nor really changed anything.
The practical reason for freedom is that freedom seems to be the only condition under which any kind of substantial moral fiber can be developed — we have tried law, compulsion and authoritarianism of various kinds, and the result is nothing to be proud of. ~ Albert Jay Nock
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'd view it as a huge improvement. Take a look at how you'd be hopping around the code on error conditions with what amounts to goto statements (resume NextTable).
The original posters change would be the first thing I'd do as a refactor.
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Hutchinson wrote: Take a look at how you'd be hopping around the code on error conditions with what amounts to goto statements (resume NextTable).
VB6 error handling is icky regardless. Depending upon local variable usage, that 'for loop' style may be reasonable. Not great, but given the lack of nice array initializers in VB6 I wouldn't call it horrible. The alternative would be to have a "select case" statement at the start of the loop to set the table name.
|
|
|
|
|
Except that I have to maintain and enhance this code.
Refactoring code for elegance is not wasted time - every future maintainer will appreciate your effort.
|
|
|
|
|
Eeeewww.
Yeah I would definitely change that code. But if you do change it, make sure you change it to use query parameters instead of building SQL from scratch. It's not so bad when the tablename is hard-coded into the method itself but if passed in from outside, it's a huge security hole. (Some future slave might decide to call the method with user-provided input, and it won't be properly escaped)
It's so hard to find good slaves today...
Before .NET 4.0,
object Universe = NULL;
|
|
|
|
|
What i really like the most is the "Err_Handler". So beautiful, so classical, so elegant 
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
