January 12th, 2009
I’m doing a bit of work on XOM, trying to optimize and improve some of the Unicode normalization code. A lot of this is autogenerated from the Unicode data files, and I’m actually working on the meta-code that parses those files and then generates the actual shipping code. In this code, I’m setting up a switch
statement like this one:
switch(i) {
case 0:
return result + "NOT_REORDERED";
case 1:
return result + "OVERLAY";
case 7:
return result + "NUKTA";
case 8:
return result + "KANA_VOICING";
case 9:
return result + "VIRAMA";
case 202:
return result + "ATTACHED_BELOW";
case 216:
return result + "ATTACHED_ABOVE_RIGHT";
case 218:
return result + "BELOW_LEFT";
case 220:
return result + "BELOW";
case 222:
return result + "BELOW_RIGHT";
case 224:
return result + "LEFT";
case 226:
return result + "RIGHT";
case 228:
return result + "ABOVE_LEFT";
case 230:
return result + "ABOVE";
case 232:
return result + "ABOVE_RIGHT";
case 233:
return result + "DOUBLE_BELOW";
case 234:
return result + "DOUBLE_ABOVE";
case 240:
return result + "IOTA_SUBSCRIPT";
default:
return result + "NOT_REORDERED";
}
And then I stop myself. Do you see the bug? Actually it’s a meta bug that leads to the true bug.
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Programming | 8 Comments »
January 1st, 2009
C-family languages including Java, C#, and C++ do not require braces around single line blocks. For example, this is a legal loop:
for (int i=0; i < args.length; i++) process(args[i]);
So’s this:
for (int i=0; i < args.length; i++)
process(args[i]);
However both of these are very bad form, and lead to buggy code. All blocks in C-like languages should be explicitly delimited by braces across multiple lines in all cases. Here’s why:
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Programming | 23 Comments »
December 21st, 2008
Need more proof that monopolies are bad business? Just try to pay a utility bill online sometime. I have just gotten through attempting to pay my cable, gas, and electric bills online. Exactly none of them offered what I would consider a minimally competent site. The exact problems varied, but there was one that was common across the three. Every single one required registration before they’d take my money:
By contrast, non-monopoly sites like Office Depot have long since learned that registration is an optional step they shouldn’t let get in the way of completing a sale. But the utility companies? Either they hire developers who are distinctly behind the state of the art, or they just don’t care because you have to pay them, or both.
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in User Interface | 21 Comments »
December 9th, 2008
Version 3.0 of Python has been released. Notably Python has again done something Java has long resisted: it has broken backwards compatibility with Python 2.x. Notable fixes include a much saner string processing model based on Unicode. I am told by my Pythonista colleagues that a lot of other weirdnesses such as the print operator and the meaning of parentheses in except
clauses have been cleaned up as well. Though I don’t expect all Python programmers to upgrade immediately (and version 2.x will be maintained for some years to come) version 3.0 is clearly a simpler, better, saner language than version 2.x that will enhance productivity and make programmers’ jobs more fun. Bravo for Python. This is clearly a living, evolving language.
Java by contrast, is dead. It has at least as much brain damage and misdesign as Python 2.x did, probably more; yet Sun has resisted tooth and nail all efforts to fix the known problems. Instead they keep applying ever more lipstick to this pig without ever cleaning off all the filth and mud it’s been rolling in for the last 12 years. They keep applying more perfume when what it really needs is a bath.
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Programming | 94 Comments »
November 11th, 2008
I was reminded once more today just how important it is to write minimal APIs that don’t expose more than they have to. Briefly I had code like this:
private boolean flag;
public boolean getFlag() {
return this.flag;
}
public boolean setFlag(boolean value);
this.flag = value;
}
Pretty boilerplate stuff, I think you’ll agree.
However I noticed that after some refactoring that merged a couple of classes I was now only calling getFoo()
from within the same class (or at least I thought I was) so I marked it private. Eclipse promptly warned me that the method was unused so I deleted it. Then Eclipse warned me the field was unread. That seemed wrong so I looked closer and yep, it was a bug. The feature the flag was supposed to control was always on. During the refactoring I had failed to move the use of the flag
field into the new class. I added a test to catch this, and fixed the problem.
What’s interesting about this example is that I found the bug only because I was aggressively minimizing the non-private parts of my API. The less public API a class has, the fewer places there are for bugs to hide. The less public API there is, the easier it is for analyzers–static, dynamic, and human–to detect problems.
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Programming | 11 Comments »