Why bad scientific code beats code following “best practices” (2014)

Re:Why bad scientific code beats code following “best practi... by sbov on Monday August 29, 2016 @01:00AM (#12380103)

Using find & sed is not painful.

I use getters and setters, but still think you will waste more time arguing about this issue, than leaving it be and finding out you have to change them down the line.

Edit: also, especially for getters, I like my accessors to be simple accessors. Hiding too much code behind them can be unpleasantly surprising, so as they deviate further from accessors I like to rename them - e.g. CalculateXxxx rather than GetXxx. Fewer surprises. Given that, I potentially have an issue with continuing to call it GetXXX or SetXXX in the face of certain changes.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why bad scientific code beats code following “best practi... by pitay on Monday August 29, 2016 @02:40AM (#12380395)

Using find & sed is not painful.

Using an IDE with an understanding of the language you have is even less painful. Having the IDE automatically refactor a public field to use getters and setters is a breeze with managed languages like Java and C#.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why bad scientific code beats code following “best practi... by imtringued on Monday August 29, 2016 @05:35AM (#12380890)

The same can be said about interal interfaces with only one implementation. If there is really a need for an interface then why not add it later until it's actually needed it instead of creating additional overhead for something we may never need?

[ Parent | on HN ]