• Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.eeEnglish
    3·
    6 months ago

    rules aren’t there to be enforced, they’re there so that when you break them you take a second to think about why.

  • algernon@lemmy.ml
    2·
    6 months ago

    Sadly, that’s not code Linus wrote. Nor one he merged. (It’s from git, copied from rsync, committed by Junio)

    • laughterlaughter@lemmy.world
      1·
      6 months ago

      Plus it shows three levels of indentation. Well… there is the extra one created by the compiler directives, but do they really count?

      • Epzillon@lemmy.ml
        3·
        6 months ago

        Isn’t that from 1991 while the quote is from 1995? If we’re nitpicking maybe we shouldn’t time travel 🤓

        • rwhitisissle@lemmy.ml
          1·
          6 months ago

          I’ve heard similar from the worst first year CS students you could ever meet. People talk out their ass without the experience to back up their observations constantly. The indentation thing is a reasonable heuristic that states you are adding too much complexity at specific points in your code that suggests you should isolate core pieces of logic into discrete functions. And while that’s broadly reasonable, this often has the downside of you producing code that has a lot of very small, very specific functions that are only ever invoked by other very small, very specific functions. It doesn’t make your code easier to read or understand and it arguably leads to scenarios in which your code becomes very disorganized and needlessly opaque purely because you didn’t want additional indentation in order to meet some kind of arbitrary formatting guideline you set for yourself. This is something that happens in any language but some languages are more susceptible to it than others. PEP8’s line length limit is treated like biblical edict by your more insufferable python developers.

  • dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world
    11·
    6 months ago

    One nit: whatever IDE is displaying single-character surrogates for == and != needs to stop. In a world where one could literally type those Unicode symbols in, and break a build, I think everyone is better off seeing the actual syntax.

    • PlexSheep@infosec.pub
      1·
      6 months ago

      I think it’s a lineature. FiraCide does that for example, and I like it very much. My compiler and lsp will tell me if there is a bad char there. Besides, the linea tires take the same space as two regular characters, so you can tell the difference.

      It’s not the 90s anymore. My editor can look nice.

  • RustyNova@lemmy.world
    0·
    6 months ago

    While I totally agree with that philosophy, it heavily depends on the language.

    For Rust, my philosophy is more like this:

    • Impl + fn body don’t count, as well as async blocks if they span the whole function
    • do not nest more than one if statement. You probably better using guard clauses or matches
    • do not put loops into an if statement.
    • do not nest loops unless clearly shown to be (X, Y) indexing
    • method chaining is free
    • do not nest closures, unless the nested closure doesn’t have a {} block
    • do not use mod unless it’s test for the current module. No I don’t want to Star Wars scroll your 1000 line file. Split it.
    • calcopiritus@lemmy.world
      0·
      6 months ago

      Why have an async block spanning the whole function when you can mark the function as async? That’s 1 less level of indentation. Also, this quite is unusable for rust. A single match statement inside a function inside an impl is already 4 levels of indentation.

      • Doods@infosec.pub
        01·
        6 months ago

        A single match statement inside a function inside an impl is already 4 levels of indentation.

        How about this?

        The preferred way to ease multiple indentation levels in a switch statement is to align the switch and its subordinate case labels in the same column instead of double-indenting the case labels. E.g.:

        switch (suffix) {
case 'G':
case 'g':
        mem <<= 30;
        break;
case 'M':
case 'm':
        mem <<= 20;
        break;
case 'K':
case 'k':
        mem <<= 10;
        /* fall through */
default:
        break;
}

        I had some luck applying this to match statements. My example:

        
let x = 5;

match x {
5 => foo(),
3 => bar(),
1 => match baz(x) {
	Ok(_) => foo2(),
	Err(e) => match maybe(e) {
		Ok(_) => bar2(),
		_ => panic!(),
		}
	}
_ => panic!(),
}

        Is this acceptable, at least compared to the original switch statement idea?

        • calcopiritus@lemmy.world
          0·
          6 months ago

          Well, of course you can have few indent levels by just not indenting, I don’t think the readability loss is worth it though. If I had give up some indentation, I’d probably not indent the impl {} blocks.

          • Doods@infosec.pub
            01·
            6 months ago

            I just got some idea yesterday regarding impl blocks, ready to be my respondent?

            I had a big impl block with 4 levels of indentation, so I cut the block, and replaced

            impl InputList {
    //snip
}

            with mod impl_inputlist; and moved the impl block to a new file, and did not indent anything inside that block.

            The advantage this has over just not indenting the impl block in place, is that people will have difficulty distinguishing between what’s in the block and what’s outside, and that’s why the impl was moved to its own exclusive file, impl_inputlist.rs

            Maybe I am overstressing indentation. Ss there something wrong with my setup that prevents me from accepting 4-space indentation?

            I use:

            Editor: Neovide

            Font: “FiraCode Nerd Font Mono:h16” (16px fonts are addicintg)

            Monitor: 1366x768, 18.5 inch, 10+ years old, frankenstein-ly repaired Samsung monitor.

            Distance: I sit at about 40-60 Cm from my monitor.

            That leaves me with a 32x99 view of code excluding line numbers and such.

        • RustyNova@lemmy.world
          0·
          6 months ago

          It’s a lot less readable imo. As well than a cargo fmt later and it’s gone (unless there’s a nightly setting for it)

          • Doods@infosec.pub
            01·
            6 months ago

            Formatters are off-topic for this, styles come first, formatters are developed later.

            My other reply:

            How about this one? it more closely mirrors the switch example:

            match suffix {
'G' | 'g' => mem -= 30,
'M' | 'm' => mem -= 20,
'K' | 'k' => mem -= 10,
_ => {},
}

            How about this other one? it goes as far as cloning the switch example’s indentation:

            match suffix {
'G' | 'g' => {
	mem -= 30;
       }
'M' | 'm' => {
	mem -= 20;
       }
'K' | 'k' => {
	mem -= 10;
       }
_ => {},
}
        • lseif@sopuli.xyz
          0·
          6 months ago

          i personally find this a lot less readable than the switch example. the case keywords at the start of the line quickly signify its meaning, unlike with => after the pattern. though i dont speak for everybody.

          • Doods@infosec.pub
            01·
            6 months ago

            How about this one? it more closely mirrors the switch example:

            match suffix {
'G' | 'g' => mem -= 30,
'M' | 'm' => mem -= 20,
'K' | 'k' => mem -= 10,
_ => {},
}

            How about this other one? it goes as far as cloning the switch example’s indentation:

            match suffix {
'G' | 'g' => {
	mem -= 30;
        }
'M' | 'm' => {
	mem -= 20;
        }
'K' | 'k' => {
	mem -= 10;
        }
_ => {},
}