Re: static hashtable with conent?
Lew wrote:
Patricia Shanahan wrote:
Lew wrote:
....
It might not be unreasonable to expect professional practitioners of
programming with a particular language such as Java to be able to
read the constructs of that language. Even "advanced" constructs
with lots of parentheses or whatever.
If you can't stand the heat, don't be a chef.
It might not be unreasonable to expect readers of English to be able to
read the constructs of that language. Even "advanced" constructs with
lots of subordinate clauses or whatever.
I was referring to *professionals*. A better analogy would be
(English-language) attorneys, who are expected to do exactly that with
English, or rather the specialized form of English informally called
"legalese". If you cannot parse advanced English constructs such as
lots of subordinate clauses, you should not expect to be paid as a legal
professional.
We're supposed to be knowledgeable. It's why we get *paid* to do this.
Having had to review and sign patent applications, I absolutely and
totally reject any idea of taking legalese as any sort of model for my
programming style.
Of course we are supposed to be knowledgeable, though as a student I am
not being paid to do anything. I *can* read clever code, if I have to.
My bachelor's degree was in mathematics, which tends to very succinct
notation.
I just don't see why I should make my code any harder to read than it
has to be, and I can see a lot of benefits to making it as simple and
clear as possible. That way, readers can focus on important stuff, such
as whether the map has the right initial contents, rather than details
such as the initialization method.
Patricia