Does “variables should live in the smallest scope as possible” include the case “variables should not...












1















According to https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/a/388055/248528, variables should live in the smallest scope as possible, simplify the problem into my interpretation, it means we should refactor this kind of code:



public class Main{
private A a;
private B b;

public ABResult getResult(){
getA();
getB();
return ABFactory.mix(a,b);
}

private getA(){
a=SomeFactory.getA();
}

private getB(){
b=SomeFactory.getB();
}
}


into something like this:



public class Main{
public ABResult getResult(){
A a=getA();
B b=getB();
return ABFactory.mix(a,b);
}

private getA(){
a=SomeFactory.getA();
}

private getB(){
b=SomeFactory.getB();
}
}


but according to the "spirit" of "variables should live in the smallest scope as possible", isn't "never have variables" have smaller scope than "have variables"? So I think the version above should be refactored:



public class Main{
public ABResult getResult(){
return ABFactory.mix(getA(),getB());
}

private getA(){
a=SomeFactory.getA();
}

private getB(){
b=SomeFactory.getB();
}
}


so that getResult() doesn't have any local variables at all. Is that true?










share|improve this question


















  • 3





    Creating explicit variables comes with the benefit of having to name them. Introducing a few variables can quickly turn an opaque method into a readable one.

    – Jared Goguen
    3 hours ago
















1















According to https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/a/388055/248528, variables should live in the smallest scope as possible, simplify the problem into my interpretation, it means we should refactor this kind of code:



public class Main{
private A a;
private B b;

public ABResult getResult(){
getA();
getB();
return ABFactory.mix(a,b);
}

private getA(){
a=SomeFactory.getA();
}

private getB(){
b=SomeFactory.getB();
}
}


into something like this:



public class Main{
public ABResult getResult(){
A a=getA();
B b=getB();
return ABFactory.mix(a,b);
}

private getA(){
a=SomeFactory.getA();
}

private getB(){
b=SomeFactory.getB();
}
}


but according to the "spirit" of "variables should live in the smallest scope as possible", isn't "never have variables" have smaller scope than "have variables"? So I think the version above should be refactored:



public class Main{
public ABResult getResult(){
return ABFactory.mix(getA(),getB());
}

private getA(){
a=SomeFactory.getA();
}

private getB(){
b=SomeFactory.getB();
}
}


so that getResult() doesn't have any local variables at all. Is that true?










share|improve this question


















  • 3





    Creating explicit variables comes with the benefit of having to name them. Introducing a few variables can quickly turn an opaque method into a readable one.

    – Jared Goguen
    3 hours ago














1












1








1








According to https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/a/388055/248528, variables should live in the smallest scope as possible, simplify the problem into my interpretation, it means we should refactor this kind of code:



public class Main{
private A a;
private B b;

public ABResult getResult(){
getA();
getB();
return ABFactory.mix(a,b);
}

private getA(){
a=SomeFactory.getA();
}

private getB(){
b=SomeFactory.getB();
}
}


into something like this:



public class Main{
public ABResult getResult(){
A a=getA();
B b=getB();
return ABFactory.mix(a,b);
}

private getA(){
a=SomeFactory.getA();
}

private getB(){
b=SomeFactory.getB();
}
}


but according to the "spirit" of "variables should live in the smallest scope as possible", isn't "never have variables" have smaller scope than "have variables"? So I think the version above should be refactored:



public class Main{
public ABResult getResult(){
return ABFactory.mix(getA(),getB());
}

private getA(){
a=SomeFactory.getA();
}

private getB(){
b=SomeFactory.getB();
}
}


so that getResult() doesn't have any local variables at all. Is that true?










share|improve this question














According to https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/a/388055/248528, variables should live in the smallest scope as possible, simplify the problem into my interpretation, it means we should refactor this kind of code:



public class Main{
private A a;
private B b;

public ABResult getResult(){
getA();
getB();
return ABFactory.mix(a,b);
}

private getA(){
a=SomeFactory.getA();
}

private getB(){
b=SomeFactory.getB();
}
}


into something like this:



public class Main{
public ABResult getResult(){
A a=getA();
B b=getB();
return ABFactory.mix(a,b);
}

private getA(){
a=SomeFactory.getA();
}

private getB(){
b=SomeFactory.getB();
}
}


but according to the "spirit" of "variables should live in the smallest scope as possible", isn't "never have variables" have smaller scope than "have variables"? So I think the version above should be refactored:



public class Main{
public ABResult getResult(){
return ABFactory.mix(getA(),getB());
}

private getA(){
a=SomeFactory.getA();
}

private getB(){
b=SomeFactory.getB();
}
}


so that getResult() doesn't have any local variables at all. Is that true?







refactoring scope local-variable






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked 4 hours ago









mmmaaammmaaa

2,68741724




2,68741724








  • 3





    Creating explicit variables comes with the benefit of having to name them. Introducing a few variables can quickly turn an opaque method into a readable one.

    – Jared Goguen
    3 hours ago














  • 3





    Creating explicit variables comes with the benefit of having to name them. Introducing a few variables can quickly turn an opaque method into a readable one.

    – Jared Goguen
    3 hours ago








3




3





Creating explicit variables comes with the benefit of having to name them. Introducing a few variables can quickly turn an opaque method into a readable one.

– Jared Goguen
3 hours ago





Creating explicit variables comes with the benefit of having to name them. Introducing a few variables can quickly turn an opaque method into a readable one.

– Jared Goguen
3 hours ago










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















5














No. There are several reasons why:




  1. Variables with meaningful names can make code easier to comprehend.

  2. Breaking up complex formulas into smaller steps can make the code easier to read.

  3. Caching.

  4. Holding references to objects so that they can be used more than once.


And so on.






share|improve this answer





















  • 1





    Also worth mentioning: The value is going to be stored in memory regardless, so it actually ends up with the same scope anyway. May as well name it(for the reasons Robert mentions above)!

    – Maybe_Factor
    1 hour ago











Your Answer








StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "131"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsoftwareengineering.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f388435%2fdoes-variables-should-live-in-the-smallest-scope-as-possible-include-the-case%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









5














No. There are several reasons why:




  1. Variables with meaningful names can make code easier to comprehend.

  2. Breaking up complex formulas into smaller steps can make the code easier to read.

  3. Caching.

  4. Holding references to objects so that they can be used more than once.


And so on.






share|improve this answer





















  • 1





    Also worth mentioning: The value is going to be stored in memory regardless, so it actually ends up with the same scope anyway. May as well name it(for the reasons Robert mentions above)!

    – Maybe_Factor
    1 hour ago
















5














No. There are several reasons why:




  1. Variables with meaningful names can make code easier to comprehend.

  2. Breaking up complex formulas into smaller steps can make the code easier to read.

  3. Caching.

  4. Holding references to objects so that they can be used more than once.


And so on.






share|improve this answer





















  • 1





    Also worth mentioning: The value is going to be stored in memory regardless, so it actually ends up with the same scope anyway. May as well name it(for the reasons Robert mentions above)!

    – Maybe_Factor
    1 hour ago














5












5








5







No. There are several reasons why:




  1. Variables with meaningful names can make code easier to comprehend.

  2. Breaking up complex formulas into smaller steps can make the code easier to read.

  3. Caching.

  4. Holding references to objects so that they can be used more than once.


And so on.






share|improve this answer















No. There are several reasons why:




  1. Variables with meaningful names can make code easier to comprehend.

  2. Breaking up complex formulas into smaller steps can make the code easier to read.

  3. Caching.

  4. Holding references to objects so that they can be used more than once.


And so on.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 2 hours ago

























answered 2 hours ago









Robert HarveyRobert Harvey

166k41380595




166k41380595








  • 1





    Also worth mentioning: The value is going to be stored in memory regardless, so it actually ends up with the same scope anyway. May as well name it(for the reasons Robert mentions above)!

    – Maybe_Factor
    1 hour ago














  • 1





    Also worth mentioning: The value is going to be stored in memory regardless, so it actually ends up with the same scope anyway. May as well name it(for the reasons Robert mentions above)!

    – Maybe_Factor
    1 hour ago








1




1





Also worth mentioning: The value is going to be stored in memory regardless, so it actually ends up with the same scope anyway. May as well name it(for the reasons Robert mentions above)!

– Maybe_Factor
1 hour ago





Also worth mentioning: The value is going to be stored in memory regardless, so it actually ends up with the same scope anyway. May as well name it(for the reasons Robert mentions above)!

– Maybe_Factor
1 hour ago


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Software Engineering Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsoftwareengineering.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f388435%2fdoes-variables-should-live-in-the-smallest-scope-as-possible-include-the-case%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

Liste der Baudenkmale in Friedland (Mecklenburg)

Single-Malt-Whisky

Czorneboh