this post was submitted on 25 Sep 2024
875 points (97.5% liked)

Programming

17077 readers
1640 users here now

Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!

Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.

Hope you enjoy the instance!

Rules

Rules

  • Follow the programming.dev instance rules
  • Keep content related to programming in some way
  • If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos

Wormhole

Follow the wormhole through a path of communities [email protected]



founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer -2 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Always love seeing the trope:

*writes awful code*

See! This is why this language sucks!

[–] calcopiritus 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

This is literally a getter function. How is a getter awful code? It's the simplest function there is. The only function simpler than that is returning the input itself.

[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

How does "foo" mean "get"? Half the battle of writing correct code is writing code that's easy to interpret. Do you always look at the guts of every function you're about to use?

[–] calcopiritus 2 points 1 day ago

It's a one line function in an example. It's a getter.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 days ago (2 children)

How would you make it non-awful, without specifying static types?

I guess, a unit test would catch it, but needing 100% test coverage to catch typos isn't exactly great...

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I would do

class MyClass:
    def __init__(self, value):
        self._whatever = value

    @property
    def whatever(self):
        return self._whatever

Personally, I would type hint all of that but I'm just showing how you can do it without types. Your linter should be smart enough to say "hey dumbass did you mean this other thing"? Also since we didn't create a setter you can't arbitrarily overwrite the value of whatever so thats neat.

And I'll just say before I post that I'm on mobile and I'm sorry if the formatting is fucked. I'm not going to fix it.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 days ago

I use a spell checker in my IDE. It would catch this.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

What's awful about this example? The only thing I do is access an object member. Does your code not do that??

[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

What's the purpose of foo? Why an ambiguous single character variable? What if the property was there but the value was null? Why not use (assuming JS) optional chaining?

I'd approach it more like this:

function getWhatevrProp(userData) (
  const default = { whatevr: "n/a" };

  return { ...default, ...userData }.whatevr;
}

Sorry, read too fast the first time. It's more likely Python. I also don't know Python well enough to give recommendations on that.

[–] calcopiritus 4 points 2 days ago

Lmao, and they say dynamic typing is supposed to speed up the developer.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago

It's an example to demonstrate that linters cannot reliably detect variable name typos - you need static types. None of the stuff you mentioned is relevant.

The typo in your example is also undetectable by linters. I think you're missing the point.