tiles-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Greg Reddin" <gred...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Checkstyle doubts
Date Thu, 05 Apr 2007 16:30:31 GMT
On 4/5/07, Martin Cooper <martinc@apache.org> wrote:
> 2. The "public" redundant modifier is declared illegal in that
> > checkstyle file, but I think that it is not so bad.
> Here I disagree. IMHO, using 'public' in interfaces demonstrates a lack of
> clarity. It constitutes "noise" in the interface definition that hinders
> rapid comprehension. When someone reads through a set of interfaces and
> sees
> 'public' scattered around, they're likely to stop and wonder if the author
> had some purpose to specifying 'public' that they should try to
> understand,
> when in reality the author was simply not thinking clearly enough to
> translate their thoughts into accurate interface definitions. We should
> always strive for maximum communication bandwidth, and not clutter the
> code
> with things that readers will trip over and have to stop and wonder about.

Interesting.  I've always preferred to be explicit and express things that
are true by default.  For example, I use "this." a lot (though probably not
consistently enough to communicate anything).  I can see your point but the
lack of the public modifier would "hinder rapid comprehension" for me, just
because I'm used to seeing it there.  (To be real honest I didn't realize it
was defaulted until I read this - though it makes sense).

So should we cater to those who don't know the language well enough or cater
to those who prefer language purit?  Personally, I still prefer the former
because I like being explicit, but I won't die on that hill.  I'm willing to
be convinced otherwise :-)


  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message