Comments for Todd Huss

Comment on Code readability through conciseness by Todd Huss

Todd Huss — Sat, 28 Aug 2010 06:23:30 +0000

Ian, nice, highly readable and very concise!

I’m not crazy about the procedural nature of PHP’s array_sum(…) and Python’s sum(…) but that’s just my personal taste for highly object oriented languages like Ruby, Scala, and Smalltalk versus hybrid languages like Perl, PHP, Python, and Java. I think there’s no question though that the Python and PHP examples are both highly readable and concise.

Comment on Code readability through conciseness by ic

ic — Sat, 28 Aug 2010 01:14:59 +0000

Then, of course, there is concision + clarity…

PHP:
$sum = array_sum(array(1,2,3,4));

Comment on Code readability through conciseness by Todd Huss

Todd Huss — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 18:17:00 +0000

Steven, I can see your viewpoint and it’s definitely a matter of taste as to when you take advantage of the conciseness features of a certain language. If it’s the anonymous functions you’re not liking though, get ready, because anonymous functions and closures are coming in Java 7.

Also, you can’t lump Scala with Ruby as being a dynamic language. Scala is statically typed and many argue that it’s type system is stronger than Java’s (especially around generics) yet with far less ceremony (where ceremony = having to unnecessarily re-declare your types over and over again).

I do however agree that Scala syntax takes some getting used to.

Comment on Code readability through conciseness by steven

steven — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 03:07:40 +0000

cryptic code like this is exactly why i dont like these kind of dynamic languages. they try to get too smart for their own good and it just turns into a pissing contest just like this post.

Comment on Code readability through conciseness by Todd Huss

Todd Huss — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 20:43:24 +0000

Mike, if you haven’t used a language that supports anonymous functions and closures like Ruby, Scala, and soon Java 7 then the above would probably be very cryptic. I know it was for me when I first started using Ruby but now I’m a huge fan.

I would still argue that summing an array with [1,2,3,4].inject(:+) is a lot more readable than the longer variant and a hell of a lot more readable than the non functional form using a for loop. Even if you don’t necessarily understand the underlying mechanics.

Comment on Code readability through conciseness by Mike Funk

Mike Funk — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 20:29:23 +0000

Todd, that sure is some cryptic looking code. But, then, there has always been an element of code obfuscators in the computer language community. I’m a minimalist, and I dig conciseness and readability – just not to the extreme you take it with Ruby and Scala.

BTW, coming from a sailing family, very nice boat.

Comment on Ruby on Rails Dreamhost plugin by Andrew W

Andrew W — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 04:29:02 +0000

Has anyone figured out anything similar to this now that Dreamhost is using Passenger?

Andrew W.

Comment on Instantiating and populating a list or collection by Martial Java / Initializing Collection

Martial Java / Initializing Collection — Wed, 21 Jul 2010 11:16:08 +0000

[...] hardly find an elegant solution until I see this post. There are at least three better solution for the [...]

Comment on Simple CMS using Google Spreadsheet API by Ruli

Ruli — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 20:23:38 +0000

I am having the same problem,

side from pasting the code into a page and then changing the URL to match the published spreadsheet. what else do i need to do?

This is my code

function displayContent(json) { document.getElementById(‘headline’).innerHTML = json.feed.entry[0].gsx$html.$t; }

Comment on Instantiating and populating a list or collection by Java Tips: Initializing Collection « satukubik

Java Tips: Initializing Collection « satukubik — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 13:46:43 +0000

[...] hardly find an elegant solution until I see this post. There are at least three better solution for the [...]