Does “variables should live in the smallest scope as possible” include the case “variables should not...
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
asked 4 hours ago
mmmaaammmaaa
2,68741724
add a comment |
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
asked 4 hours ago
mmmaaammmaaa
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
add a comment |
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
asked 4 hours ago
mmmaaammmaaa
2,68741724
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
refactoring scope local-variable
asked 4 hours ago
mmmaaammmaaa
2,68741724
asked 4 hours ago
mmmaaammmaaa
2,68741724
asked 4 hours ago
mmmaaammmaaa
2,68741724
asked 4 hours ago
mmmaaammmaaa
2,68741724
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
No. There are several reasons why:
- Variables with meaningful names can make code easier to comprehend.
- Breaking up complex formulas into smaller steps can make the code easier to read.
- Caching.
- Holding references to objects so that they can be used more than once.
And so on.
answered 2 hours ago
Robert HarveyRobert Harvey
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
add a comment |
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
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
No. There are several reasons why:
- Variables with meaningful names can make code easier to comprehend.
- Breaking up complex formulas into smaller steps can make the code easier to read.
- Caching.
- Holding references to objects so that they can be used more than once.
And so on.
answered 2 hours ago
Robert HarveyRobert Harvey
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
add a comment |
No. There are several reasons why:
- Variables with meaningful names can make code easier to comprehend.
- Breaking up complex formulas into smaller steps can make the code easier to read.
- Caching.
- Holding references to objects so that they can be used more than once.
And so on.
answered 2 hours ago
Robert HarveyRobert Harvey
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
add a comment |
No. There are several reasons why:
- Variables with meaningful names can make code easier to comprehend.
- Breaking up complex formulas into smaller steps can make the code easier to read.
- Caching.
- Holding references to objects so that they can be used more than once.
And so on.
answered 2 hours ago
Robert HarveyRobert Harvey
166k41380595
No. There are several reasons why:
- Variables with meaningful names can make code easier to comprehend.
- Breaking up complex formulas into smaller steps can make the code easier to read.
- Caching.
- Holding references to objects so that they can be used more than once.
And so on.
answered 2 hours ago
Robert HarveyRobert Harvey
166k41380595
edited 2 hours ago
answered 2 hours ago
Robert HarveyRobert Harvey
166k41380595
answered 2 hours ago
Robert HarveyRobert Harvey
166k41380595
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
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