←back to thread

Good Software Development Habits

(zarar.dev)
362 points mmphosis | 1 comments | 17 Nov 24 16:34 UTC | HN request time: 0.206s | source
Show context
leetrout ◴[17 Nov 24 18:05 UTC] No.42165704[source]▶
> It's better to have some wonky parameterization than it is to have multiple implementations of nearly the same thing. Improving the parameters will be easier than to consolidate four different implementations if this situation comes up again.

Hard disagree. If you cant decompose to avoid "wonky parameters" then keep them separate. Big smell is boolean flags (avoid altogether when you can) and more than one enum parameter.

IME "heavy" function signatures are always making things harder to maintain.

replies(17): >>42165868 #>>42165902 #>>42166004 #>>42166217 #>>42166363 #>>42166370 #>>42166579 #>>42166774 #>>42167282 #>>42167534 #>>42167823 #>>42168263 #>>42168489 #>>42168888 #>>42169453 #>>42169755 #>>42171152 #
arccy ◴[17 Nov 24 19:26 UTC] No.42166363[source]▶
+1, have 2 implementations that each have an independent branch point? if you combine them you have a function with 2 bool parameters, and 4 possible states to test, 2 of which you might never need
replies(4): >>42167501 #>>42168511 #>>42170578 #>>42187714 #
1. Aeolun ◴[18 Nov 24 00:10 UTC] No.42168511[source]▶
There’s ways to write this that still keep the entrypoint to a single function. Having different function names as your parameters doesn’t make them any less so.