Programming

17390 readers

159 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

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 !webdev@programming.dev

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

snowe@programming.dev

Ategon@programming.dev

MaungaHikoi@lemmy.nz

Good Refactoring vs Bad Refactoring (www.builder.io)

submitted 2 months ago by lysdexic@programming.dev to c/programming@programming.dev

19 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] eager_eagle@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Because you're assuming foo won't be renamed when it becomes a function. A function should start with a verb, say get_foo(), because just foo() tells me nothing about what the function does (or what to expect as output). If you make it a property, get_ is implicit.

So if the age is computed from the year of birth for example, it's really e.g. thing.age or thing.get_age() - both of which are fine, but I'd pick the property version.

[–] nous@programming.dev 2 points 2 months ago

Or just thing.age() which is fine and is fairly obvious it will return the age of the thing. And that is what is done in most languages that dont have computed properties. get_ on a method really adds no value nor clarity to things. The only reason foo() is ambiguous is because it is a bad name - really just a place holder. Missing out the brackets here adds no value either, just makes it hard to tell that you are calling a function instead of just accessing a property.