|
"Technically mutable" ??? If it's mutable, it's mutable. If it's immutable, it's immutable. Simple. There are no "technicalities".
As far as your ignorance goes, the following statement is 100% false: "Additionally, I think it's noteworthy that for stuff that is "technically mutable," the ways by which they are mutated are completely unnatural programming designs which require the coder to go to extreme measures to mutate it."
I've seen the following example occur in real-world code and it was never a case of "unnatural programming" or "extreme measures of mutation"
This is a valid and real example and it's native (java.awt.Point). Debugging the later use of SOME_CONSTANT_POINT which would cause other components to be offset took some unnecessary time simply because the use of the "technically immutable" convention was taken for granted.Code:class Constants { Point SOME_CONSTANT_POINT = new Point(5, 5); } // ... omitted ... Point point = Constants.SOME_CONSTANT_POINT; point.x += 5; addComponent(component, point); // ... omitted ...
But ya know, you're right cos a constant in math is precisely the same in computer science cos you say it is.
Rofl ok, cos spreading knowledge, constructive criticism and good advice for free means he is an elitist A+
Maybe if the ignorant jack off above wouldn't be so opinionated their debate maybe would have gone somewhere productive
Because you should follow the standard naming conventions of that particular language. There's a reason why they have this.
Naming conventions make programs more understandable by making them easier to read. They can also give information about the function of the identifier-for example, whether it's a constant, package, or class-which can be helpful in understanding the code.
Code Conventions for the Java Programming Language: 9. Naming Conventions
I don't see how you can come and talk about these topics as if you are talking about facts. It's literally personal preference and me and Jason were actually having a reasonable argument, I'm not sure how my statements make me ignorant.
You love to talk about these conventions that java has regarding the naming of constants, but I have yet to see any list of constants that testifies to your viewpoint and not testify to mine. There is a reason they are vague and open to interpretation.
But ya know, your personal preference is a matter of fact because you say it is, and everyone will agree with you because of your rank.
I definitely agree with you on this. But my argument was based on the fact that a lot of people on here love to flash around the "technical mutability" argument, which I personally disagree with. I think it should be named like a constant if it will not change ever, regardless of if it CAN change. According to ryley, that makes me ignorant.
I AM talking about facts. I even provided an example which proves the bullshit you claim as "technically mutable" false.
Read: https://www.rune-server.ee/runescape...tter-java.html
I called you ignorant because you have never even bothered to look for code conventions or bothered to understand why people tell you that "technical mutability" is wrong. Refer to the thread, the outdated image above and my example to understand why it's against convention and for good reason.
My rank means nothing, I don't see why that's always the scapegoat with people. I've made contributions to this site which the other programmers found meaningful/good/useful/otherwise and nominated me for this rank. THAT'S IT. Has nothing to do with the nonsense I post on this site and shouldn't be held against me. I'm human. I'm not always right.
I wasn't scapegoating you for your rank in the way you think I was, nor was I insinuating that you don't deserve it or even that you are 100% wrong in this argument.
However -- your rank does make you hard to argue with. Crowd mentality kicks in and everybody pits themself against me.
Anyway, I'll read the document you linked but like I said I haven't seen a post that testifies to your very specific viewpoint.
My viewpoint will not change and I know that yours won't either so as Jason said, there is no real discussion to be had here.
It's a biased opinion either which way you go and when it comes down to it no one gives two shits about anyone's opinion. No one said anything about if the advice/criticism he's giving is acceptable or not, so that point is irrelevant.
Someone could give world class knowledge, but it's how you come across giving it that character opinions come from. But as I said, they're all opinions, no one gives two shits about them A+
« Previous Thread | Next Thread » |
Thread Information |
Users Browsing this ThreadThere are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests) |