tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37274183.post2280288930287291294..comments2024-03-14T09:39:31.551+02:00Comments on Java: Developing On The Streets: Longer is Sometimes BetterAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15900841850889743147noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37274183.post-27831643886465073112008-12-17T00:00:00.000+02:002008-12-17T00:00:00.000+02:00I totally agree with Andreas the fact that the onl...I totally agree with Andreas the fact that the only bad thing you are saying is that it will bug the debugger means that someone should work on a better debugger. <BR/><BR/>I really wish you had a good point against it because I am constantly in a state of preferring short to very short. <BR/>If its easy to read you need less debugging cause you can read it :).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37274183.post-81953788042958121252008-12-06T16:17:00.000+02:002008-12-06T16:17:00.000+02:00Dave,I like your distinction between these "terse"...Dave,<BR/><BR/>I like your distinction between these "terse" and "concise". Another similar statement is the one made in a <A HREF="http://javadots.blogspot.com/2008/11/shorter-is-better.html?showComment=1227610380000#c8666901585343605498" REL="nofollow">comment</A> by Yardena: "no one should sacrifice that [Writing correct and clear code] for brevity." <BR/><BR/>Although many agree with this distinction, I too often see people who believe the software quality follows the formula of "terser is better".I don't know. Maybe I'm just spending time with the wrong people :)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15900841850889743147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37274183.post-10840846811469785822008-12-05T19:09:00.000+02:002008-12-05T19:09:00.000+02:00At least you realize that most of this stuff is no...At least you realize that most of this stuff is not about readable code but rather about working around debugger deficiencies. :-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37274183.post-29889917764353560202008-12-05T18:21:00.000+02:002008-12-05T18:21:00.000+02:00IMO "terse" implies a level of abruptness not foun...IMO "terse" implies a level of abruptness not found in "concise", to its detriment. "Concise", OTOH, doesn't remove any necessary, or useful, information. Instead it's the shortest use of language that still conveys full meaning.<BR/><BR/>"Short" code can be either concise or terse, but terse (again IMO) may be short to the point of removing valuable (and/or helpful) information, including information that can reduce cognitive overhead.<BR/><BR/>I think the trend these days is to make code easily understandable: concise, not terse. Even idiomatic code (in languages that allow both concise and terse code) can be made easily understandable--the trick is to retain enough contextual information to make it concise without becoming abruptly short.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com