Mixing
Does it ever make sense for a refactor to end up with a higher LOC?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Are there cases where more verbose code (as in more logical statements) is more clean than more concise code?
refactoring
asked 2 hours ago
wrongusername
1122
New contributor
wrongusername is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Are there cases where more verbose code (as in more logical statements) is more clean than more concise code?
refactoring
asked 2 hours ago
wrongusername
1122
New contributor
wrongusername is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
see Why do 'some examples' and 'list of things' questions get closed? (also, Hint: Software Engineering Stack Exchange... expect research before asking)
– gnat
1 hour ago
5
Of course it does. Even when eliminating duplication, the code to define the new extracted function takes up space of its own. Writing a new function may take four lines and save only two, and still be a worthwhile thing to do.
– Kilian Foth
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Are there cases where more verbose code (as in more logical statements) is more clean than more concise code?
refactoring
asked 2 hours ago
wrongusername
1122
New contributor
wrongusername is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Are there cases where more verbose code (as in more logical statements) is more clean than more concise code?
refactoring
refactoring
asked 2 hours ago
wrongusername
1122
New contributor
wrongusername is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 2 hours ago
wrongusername
1122
New contributor
wrongusername is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 2 hours ago
wrongusername
1122
New contributor
wrongusername is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 2 hours ago
wrongusername
1122
asked 2 hours ago
wrongusername
1122
1122
New contributor
wrongusername is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
wrongusername is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
wrongusername is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
see Why do 'some examples' and 'list of things' questions get closed? (also, Hint: Software Engineering Stack Exchange... expect research before asking)
– gnat
1 hour ago
5
Of course it does. Even when eliminating duplication, the code to define the new extracted function takes up space of its own. Writing a new function may take four lines and save only two, and still be a worthwhile thing to do.
– Kilian Foth
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
see Why do 'some examples' and 'list of things' questions get closed? (also, Hint: Software Engineering Stack Exchange... expect research before asking)
– gnat
1 hour ago
5
Of course it does. Even when eliminating duplication, the code to define the new extracted function takes up space of its own. Writing a new function may take four lines and save only two, and still be a worthwhile thing to do.
– Kilian Foth
1 hour ago
see Why do 'some examples' and 'list of things' questions get closed? (also, Hint: Software Engineering Stack Exchange... expect research before asking)
– gnat
1 hour ago
see Why do 'some examples' and 'list of things' questions get closed? (also, Hint: Software Engineering Stack Exchange... expect research before asking)
– gnat
1 hour ago
5
5
Of course it does. Even when eliminating duplication, the code to define the new extracted function takes up space of its own. Writing a new function may take four lines and save only two, and still be a worthwhile thing to do.
– Kilian Foth
1 hour ago
Of course it does. Even when eliminating duplication, the code to define the new extracted function takes up space of its own. Writing a new function may take four lines and save only two, and still be a worthwhile thing to do.
– Kilian Foth
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
5
down vote
To answer that, let's take a real world example that happened to me. In C# a library that I maintain, I had the following code:
TResult IConsFuncMatcher<T, TResult>.Result() =>
TryCons(_enumerator) is var simpleMatchData && !simpleMatchData.head.HasValue
? _emptyValue.supplied
? _emptyValue.value
: throw new NoMatchException("No empty clause supplied");
: _recursiveConsTests.Any()
? CalculateRecursiveResult()
: CalculateSimpleResult(simpleMatchData);
Discussing this with peers, the unanimous verdict was that the nested ternary expressions, coupled with the "clever" use of is var resulted in terse, but difficult to read code.
So I refactored it to:
TResult IConsFuncMatcher<T, TResult>.Result()
var simpleMatchData = TryCons(_enumerator);
if (!simpleMatchData.head.HasValue)
return _emptyValue.supplied
? _emptyValue.value
: throw new NoMatchException("No empty clause supplied");
return _recursiveConsTests.Any()
? CalculateRecursiveResult()
: CalculateSimpleResult(simpleMatchData);
The original version contained just one compound expression with an implicit return. The new version now contains an explicit variable declaration, an if statement and two explicit returns. It contains more statements and more lines of code. Yet everyone I consulted considered it easier to read and reason, which are key aspects of "clean code".
So the answer to your question is an emphatic "yes", more verbose can be cleaner than concise code and is thus a valid refactoring.
answered 46 mins ago
David Arno
25.6k64883
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
1. Lack of correlation between LOC and readability.
The goal of refactoring is to improve the readability of a piece of code.
LOC is a very basic metric which, sometimes, correlates with the readability of a piece of code: for instance, a method with a few thousands of LOC is likely to be unreadable. It should be noted, however, that LOC is not the only metric, and in many cases lacks the correlation with the readability. For instance, a 6 LOC method is not necessarily more readable than a 4 LOC method.
2. Some refactoring techniques consist of adding LOCs.
If you take a list of refactoring techniques, you can easily spot the ones which consist in intentionnally adding LOCs. Examples:
Replace Magic Number with Symbolic Constant.
Extract Variable.
Both are very useful refactoring techniques, and their effect on the LOC is completely irrelevant when considering whether to use them or not.
Conclusion:
LOC is a dangerous metric. It is very easy to measure, and is very difficult to interpret correctly.
Until you become familiar with the techniques of measurement of code quality, consider avoiding even measuring LOC in the first place. Most of the time, you won't get anything relevant, and there would be cases where it will mislead you into decreasing the quality of your code.
answered 27 mins ago
Arseni Mourzenko
111k26273443
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
5
down vote
To answer that, let's take a real world example that happened to me. In C# a library that I maintain, I had the following code:
TResult IConsFuncMatcher<T, TResult>.Result() =>
TryCons(_enumerator) is var simpleMatchData && !simpleMatchData.head.HasValue
? _emptyValue.supplied
? _emptyValue.value
: throw new NoMatchException("No empty clause supplied");
: _recursiveConsTests.Any()
? CalculateRecursiveResult()
: CalculateSimpleResult(simpleMatchData);
Discussing this with peers, the unanimous verdict was that the nested ternary expressions, coupled with the "clever" use of is var resulted in terse, but difficult to read code.
So I refactored it to:
TResult IConsFuncMatcher<T, TResult>.Result()
var simpleMatchData = TryCons(_enumerator);
if (!simpleMatchData.head.HasValue)
return _emptyValue.supplied
? _emptyValue.value
: throw new NoMatchException("No empty clause supplied");
return _recursiveConsTests.Any()
? CalculateRecursiveResult()
: CalculateSimpleResult(simpleMatchData);
The original version contained just one compound expression with an implicit return. The new version now contains an explicit variable declaration, an if statement and two explicit returns. It contains more statements and more lines of code. Yet everyone I consulted considered it easier to read and reason, which are key aspects of "clean code".
So the answer to your question is an emphatic "yes", more verbose can be cleaner than concise code and is thus a valid refactoring.
answered 46 mins ago
David Arno
25.6k64883
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
To answer that, let's take a real world example that happened to me. In C# a library that I maintain, I had the following code:
TResult IConsFuncMatcher<T, TResult>.Result() =>
TryCons(_enumerator) is var simpleMatchData && !simpleMatchData.head.HasValue
? _emptyValue.supplied
? _emptyValue.value
: throw new NoMatchException("No empty clause supplied");
: _recursiveConsTests.Any()
? CalculateRecursiveResult()
: CalculateSimpleResult(simpleMatchData);
Discussing this with peers, the unanimous verdict was that the nested ternary expressions, coupled with the "clever" use of is var resulted in terse, but difficult to read code.
So I refactored it to:
TResult IConsFuncMatcher<T, TResult>.Result()
var simpleMatchData = TryCons(_enumerator);
if (!simpleMatchData.head.HasValue)
return _emptyValue.supplied
? _emptyValue.value
: throw new NoMatchException("No empty clause supplied");
return _recursiveConsTests.Any()
? CalculateRecursiveResult()
: CalculateSimpleResult(simpleMatchData);
The original version contained just one compound expression with an implicit return. The new version now contains an explicit variable declaration, an if statement and two explicit returns. It contains more statements and more lines of code. Yet everyone I consulted considered it easier to read and reason, which are key aspects of "clean code".
So the answer to your question is an emphatic "yes", more verbose can be cleaner than concise code and is thus a valid refactoring.
answered 46 mins ago
David Arno
25.6k64883
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
up vote
5
down vote
To answer that, let's take a real world example that happened to me. In C# a library that I maintain, I had the following code:
TResult IConsFuncMatcher<T, TResult>.Result() =>
TryCons(_enumerator) is var simpleMatchData && !simpleMatchData.head.HasValue
? _emptyValue.supplied
? _emptyValue.value
: throw new NoMatchException("No empty clause supplied");
: _recursiveConsTests.Any()
? CalculateRecursiveResult()
: CalculateSimpleResult(simpleMatchData);
Discussing this with peers, the unanimous verdict was that the nested ternary expressions, coupled with the "clever" use of is var resulted in terse, but difficult to read code.
So I refactored it to:
TResult IConsFuncMatcher<T, TResult>.Result()
var simpleMatchData = TryCons(_enumerator);
if (!simpleMatchData.head.HasValue)
return _emptyValue.supplied
? _emptyValue.value
: throw new NoMatchException("No empty clause supplied");
return _recursiveConsTests.Any()
? CalculateRecursiveResult()
: CalculateSimpleResult(simpleMatchData);
The original version contained just one compound expression with an implicit return. The new version now contains an explicit variable declaration, an if statement and two explicit returns. It contains more statements and more lines of code. Yet everyone I consulted considered it easier to read and reason, which are key aspects of "clean code".
So the answer to your question is an emphatic "yes", more verbose can be cleaner than concise code and is thus a valid refactoring.
answered 46 mins ago
David Arno
25.6k64883
To answer that, let's take a real world example that happened to me. In C# a library that I maintain, I had the following code:
TResult IConsFuncMatcher<T, TResult>.Result() =>
TryCons(_enumerator) is var simpleMatchData && !simpleMatchData.head.HasValue
? _emptyValue.supplied
? _emptyValue.value
: throw new NoMatchException("No empty clause supplied");
: _recursiveConsTests.Any()
? CalculateRecursiveResult()
: CalculateSimpleResult(simpleMatchData);
Discussing this with peers, the unanimous verdict was that the nested ternary expressions, coupled with the "clever" use of is var resulted in terse, but difficult to read code.
So I refactored it to:
TResult IConsFuncMatcher<T, TResult>.Result()
var simpleMatchData = TryCons(_enumerator);
if (!simpleMatchData.head.HasValue)
return _emptyValue.supplied
? _emptyValue.value
: throw new NoMatchException("No empty clause supplied");
return _recursiveConsTests.Any()
? CalculateRecursiveResult()
: CalculateSimpleResult(simpleMatchData);
The original version contained just one compound expression with an implicit return. The new version now contains an explicit variable declaration, an if statement and two explicit returns. It contains more statements and more lines of code. Yet everyone I consulted considered it easier to read and reason, which are key aspects of "clean code".
So the answer to your question is an emphatic "yes", more verbose can be cleaner than concise code and is thus a valid refactoring.
answered 46 mins ago
David Arno
25.6k64883
answered 46 mins ago
David Arno
25.6k64883
answered 46 mins ago
David Arno
25.6k64883
answered 46 mins ago
David Arno
25.6k64883
25.6k64883
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
1. Lack of correlation between LOC and readability.
The goal of refactoring is to improve the readability of a piece of code.
LOC is a very basic metric which, sometimes, correlates with the readability of a piece of code: for instance, a method with a few thousands of LOC is likely to be unreadable. It should be noted, however, that LOC is not the only metric, and in many cases lacks the correlation with the readability. For instance, a 6 LOC method is not necessarily more readable than a 4 LOC method.
2. Some refactoring techniques consist of adding LOCs.
If you take a list of refactoring techniques, you can easily spot the ones which consist in intentionnally adding LOCs. Examples:
Replace Magic Number with Symbolic Constant.
Extract Variable.
Both are very useful refactoring techniques, and their effect on the LOC is completely irrelevant when considering whether to use them or not.
Conclusion:
LOC is a dangerous metric. It is very easy to measure, and is very difficult to interpret correctly.
Until you become familiar with the techniques of measurement of code quality, consider avoiding even measuring LOC in the first place. Most of the time, you won't get anything relevant, and there would be cases where it will mislead you into decreasing the quality of your code.
answered 27 mins ago
Arseni Mourzenko
111k26273443
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
1. Lack of correlation between LOC and readability.
The goal of refactoring is to improve the readability of a piece of code.
LOC is a very basic metric which, sometimes, correlates with the readability of a piece of code: for instance, a method with a few thousands of LOC is likely to be unreadable. It should be noted, however, that LOC is not the only metric, and in many cases lacks the correlation with the readability. For instance, a 6 LOC method is not necessarily more readable than a 4 LOC method.
2. Some refactoring techniques consist of adding LOCs.
If you take a list of refactoring techniques, you can easily spot the ones which consist in intentionnally adding LOCs. Examples:
Replace Magic Number with Symbolic Constant.
Extract Variable.
Both are very useful refactoring techniques, and their effect on the LOC is completely irrelevant when considering whether to use them or not.
Conclusion:
LOC is a dangerous metric. It is very easy to measure, and is very difficult to interpret correctly.
Until you become familiar with the techniques of measurement of code quality, consider avoiding even measuring LOC in the first place. Most of the time, you won't get anything relevant, and there would be cases where it will mislead you into decreasing the quality of your code.
answered 27 mins ago
Arseni Mourzenko
111k26273443
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
1. Lack of correlation between LOC and readability.
The goal of refactoring is to improve the readability of a piece of code.
LOC is a very basic metric which, sometimes, correlates with the readability of a piece of code: for instance, a method with a few thousands of LOC is likely to be unreadable. It should be noted, however, that LOC is not the only metric, and in many cases lacks the correlation with the readability. For instance, a 6 LOC method is not necessarily more readable than a 4 LOC method.
2. Some refactoring techniques consist of adding LOCs.
If you take a list of refactoring techniques, you can easily spot the ones which consist in intentionnally adding LOCs. Examples:
Replace Magic Number with Symbolic Constant.
Extract Variable.
Both are very useful refactoring techniques, and their effect on the LOC is completely irrelevant when considering whether to use them or not.
Conclusion:
LOC is a dangerous metric. It is very easy to measure, and is very difficult to interpret correctly.
Until you become familiar with the techniques of measurement of code quality, consider avoiding even measuring LOC in the first place. Most of the time, you won't get anything relevant, and there would be cases where it will mislead you into decreasing the quality of your code.
answered 27 mins ago
Arseni Mourzenko
111k26273443
1. Lack of correlation between LOC and readability.
The goal of refactoring is to improve the readability of a piece of code.
LOC is a very basic metric which, sometimes, correlates with the readability of a piece of code: for instance, a method with a few thousands of LOC is likely to be unreadable. It should be noted, however, that LOC is not the only metric, and in many cases lacks the correlation with the readability. For instance, a 6 LOC method is not necessarily more readable than a 4 LOC method.
2. Some refactoring techniques consist of adding LOCs.
If you take a list of refactoring techniques, you can easily spot the ones which consist in intentionnally adding LOCs. Examples:
Replace Magic Number with Symbolic Constant.
Extract Variable.
Both are very useful refactoring techniques, and their effect on the LOC is completely irrelevant when considering whether to use them or not.
Conclusion:
LOC is a dangerous metric. It is very easy to measure, and is very difficult to interpret correctly.
Until you become familiar with the techniques of measurement of code quality, consider avoiding even measuring LOC in the first place. Most of the time, you won't get anything relevant, and there would be cases where it will mislead you into decreasing the quality of your code.
answered 27 mins ago
Arseni Mourzenko
111k26273443
answered 27 mins ago
Arseni Mourzenko
111k26273443
answered 27 mins ago
Arseni Mourzenko
111k26273443
answered 27 mins ago
Arseni Mourzenko
111k26273443
111k26273443
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
wrongusername is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
wrongusername is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
wrongusername is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
wrongusername is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsoftwareengineering.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f379879%2fdoes-it-ever-make-sense-for-a-refactor-to-end-up-with-a-higher-loc%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
see Why do 'some examples' and 'list of things' questions get closed? (also, Hint: Software Engineering Stack Exchange... expect research before asking)
– gnat
1 hour ago
5
Of course it does. Even when eliminating duplication, the code to define the new extracted function takes up space of its own. Writing a new function may take four lines and save only two, and still be a worthwhile thing to do.
– Kilian Foth
1 hour ago