|
It's this new cool style of programming named For-Oriented Programming, or FOP for short.
I think I'll try it out on my next project 
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: For-Oriented Programming, or FOP
|
|
|
|
|
raddevus wrote: Sander Rossel wrote: For-Oriented Programming, or FOP
Or For Loop Oriented Programming - guaranteed to be a complete FLOP
(Yes, I know FLOPS is already an acronym in computing for Floating Point Operations Per Second).
|
|
|
|
|
Would be a good candidate for The Weird And The Wonderful forum, rather than the Lounge.
I'm surprised it compiled. Shouldn't 'ep;' be 'ep:;'? I don't know since it is 43 years since I last wrote a goto statement (excluding for old languages that needed 'ON ERROR GOTO ..', and that was as recent as the late 1990s).
modified 8-Oct-20 7:39am.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: I'm surprised it compiled.
I strongly doubt it compiles.
|
|
|
|
|
First thoughts: It does not look very performant with 4 nested for loops, but it might be necessary, so need more information before commenting any more.
Blink twice thoughts: Nuke that goto. Nuke it from space...
This should not compile in C#.
Wouldn't that have undefined behaviour in C, as the loop variables would not get initialised?
It looks like the code that the goto label refers to is only executed from the goto, so perhaps the goto could be replaced by moving that code into the if statement.
Good luck untangling this code.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, it shows a good deal of promise. The author has very rigorously and helpfully identified (via comments) both the end of the method, and the end of the last for loop. Clearly s/he was in a great hurry, or maybe just wilfully lazy, as there is no equivalent commenting on the end of the inner loops. A smack on the wrist needed there, I think.
Succinct and meaningful variable names used. in suggests a background in early BASIC, but that's fine; at least we know which level each variable relates to. There's a flag helpfully named flag, and a condition sensibly named pass. Well thought through. My criticism would be that ep is obviously the "end procedure" goto target, but to perpetuate the camel case standard used in the method name, it should be eP.
Indentation is good and consistent. Not sure on the inline if but that may conform to local standards.
Otherwise? meh. 
modified 8-Oct-20 8:29am.
|
|
|
|
|
Without context on what it's doing and trying to solve it's a bit difficult to say, but it looks klunky and if I had to review it I'd probably fail it.
|
|
|
|
|
Without context, it's hard to say what's going on but a thought occurs to me here; if there is no condition before that return statement, each loop level is going to execute only once so the whole logic could be flattened.
|
|
|
|
|
who gave you permission to post my code on here? I thought the red printing at the top forbid that.
edit: oops, sorry meant to reply to that other fellow.
If you can keep your head while those about you are losing theirs, perhaps you don't understand the situation.
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: code review where you are
On my current team, I'm the only one who writes "real code" -- and I definitely would not have written that.
We've been required to do code reviews though... so we pretend to do code reviews of our SSIS packages. 
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe a self code review or the code review was sent to a subordinate/junior guy or a force approval. 
Jim Rohn: "Don't wish it was easier, wish you were better". Subscribe to my blog @ https://jinnecesario.com/.
|
|
|
|
|
Isn't that the guy in QA that asked where to stick the goto?
But I'm sure that's not where they told him to stick it.
I'm not sure how many cookies it makes to be happy, but so far it's not 27.
JaxCoder.com
|
|
|
|
|
Yes - I'm trying to get him to see that I'm not the only one who looks at theat and sees Assembler code written in C compiled by a C++ compiler and never going to work in C# ...
He thinks it's perfectly good code because it has worked since 2006. We all know that just because you can do something, it doesn't mean you should. I feel sorry for anyone who has to work for / with him - that company has to be the kiss of death for your career!
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: We all know that just because you can do something, it doesn't mean you should.
Make him watch Jurrasic Park. Again. Like Malcom McDowell in Clockwork Orange.
I’ve given up trying to be calm. However, I am open to feeling slightly less agitated.
|
|
|
|
|
We don't do code reviews where I work. Go ahead, keep throwing up; I'll wait.
1. I don't like the goto. I know some folks like them for error exit handling when you're not using exceptions, but I'm not one of them.
2. If the ep symbol is intended to be a label, it's certainly poorly placed.
3. There's nothing inherently wrong in the numerous nested for loops. It depends upon their purpose.
3.1. If the nested loops are simple indices in multi-dimensional data performing a simple task, it might be the most concise way to accomplish that task. Adding layers of abstraction to remove the nesting might complicate the logic unnecessarily, especially if that's the only reason for adding the layer.
3.2. If 3.1 is not the case, the loops are certainly a code smell since they imply accessing multiple levels of detail from a single scope.
3.3. The iteration values i1, i2, etc. are poorly named.
4. I also don't like the return embedded in the loops. I don't have a problem using break or continue to exit a loop early, but that keeps the range of the 'goto' to the body of the loop, making control flow analysis simpler.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: Your thoughts
The label 'ep' probably means exit point. The only thing I can think of is that the author is following the single-entry single-exit[^] code standard.
I've worked on teams that tried to adhere to this policy. I've had some of my code rejected by reviewers with the reason of: "Refactor to single exit". That code is in your operating system.
Best Wishes,
-David Delaune
|
|
|
|
|
We don't have code reviews but I would have one with the group just to point out how horrendous that is.
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
|
|
|
|
|
Commenting the ending brace shows potential.
It was only in wine that he laid down no limit for himself, but he did not allow himself to be confused by it.
― Confucian Analects: Rules of Confucius about his food
|
|
|
|
|
No, simply for nesting / length. I'm sure well-named functions could be pulled out, which would decrease the cognitive load on the reader, especially someone new to the code, which includes the original author in about a month or two.
------------------------------------------------
If you say that getting the money
is the most important thing
You will spend your life
completely wasting your time
You will be doing things
you don't like doing
In order to go on living
That is, to go on doing things
you don't like doing
Which is stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
Pascal, for instance, will not allow you to hyperspace into a scope like that. for good reason.
the only useful scenario for this "technique" is where you have the expressions after the closing brace of the inner loops. that way either you execute all the looping which creates some multi dimensional computation or you jump with goto inside the most inner loop and execute a liner computation, once for every loop.
but, in this case i fail to comprehend the reason for jumping at the tail of the loops.
equally puzzled by the most inner return.
this looks like is some kind of a trick interview question...
it would be interesting to know what is the purpose of this "device"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
That was my very first program in the 1960s. It was a FORTRAN loop to calculate Chess moves. My Dad punched it into cards and had it evaluated, and said it would take more years to compute than there are stars in the Universe.
|
|
|
|
|
In my career, I actually had to review a piece of code similar to this. My approach was to turn the code review into a teaching moment. I had the developer explain the problem they were trying to solve, what solutions they considered and why they chose this one.
The developer ended up reworking the code and produced a much-improved solution. More importantly, though the developer never sent code like this in for code review again.
|
|
|
|
|
Not sure what I find worse, the amount of nested for's or the use of goto.
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
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
