Subscribe / Unsubscribe Enewsletters | Login | Register

Pencil Banner

9 bad programming habits we secretly love

Peter Wayner | Oct. 20, 2015
Breaking the rules can bring a little thrill -- and produce better, more efficient code.

Sometimes a goto or a jump is cleaner.

Programming habit No. 8: Using short variable names (but i and x and and make sense)

Edgar Allan Poe used to say that every word in a story should build to a single conclusion. By this, he meant that every word must say something to the reader. The coding rules insist on the same. Each variable name should explain what it's doing and why it's there. This is taken to insane lengths by Java programmers who’ve embraced the idea of using camel case variable names to tell elaborate details about what the variable does. Some programmers write variable names that have five, six, or even more words glued together.

But sometimes it's easier to use an inscrutable one-letter variable. Sometimes it's simpler to use only i or j for the iterators in loops. Sometimes it's simpler to use a for an array and l for a list, even if it's indistinguishable from the number 1.

Yes, an earlier part of this article encouraged self-documenting code over long comments. In this case, a one-letter variable name is self-documenting. The letter i is the universal iterator. The smart programmer will know immediately.

Programming habit No. 9: Redefining operators and functions

Some of the most fun languages let you do truly devious things like redefine the value of elements that look like they should be constant. Python, for instance, lets you type TRUE=FALSE, at least in Version 2.7 and before. This doesn't create some kind of logic collapse and the end of the universe; it simply swaps the meaning of TRUE and FALSE. You can also play dangerous games like this with C preprocessors and some other languages. Still other languages let you redefine operators like the plus sign.

This is a stretch, but there will be points within a big block of code when it’s faster to redefine one or more of these so-called constants. Sometimes the boss wants the code to do something entirely different. Sure, you could work through the code and change every occurrence, or you could redefine reality. It can make you look like a genius. Instead of rewriting a huge library, you simply flip a bit and it does the opposite.

Perhaps it’s good to draw the line here. You shouldn’t try this at home, no matter how clever and fun it can be. This is too dangerous -- really ... honest.


Previous Page  1  2  3  4  5 

Sign up for Computerworld eNewsletters.