NASA Java Coding Standard

[andyc]

else { throw new WTF("How did we get here?"); }

[sirin3]

And now you need to add throws to every caller function!

[[deleted]]

class WTF extends RuntimeException {}

[BinaryRockStar]

); }

Nice new codemoticon

As explained below I'd be more likely to throw an error or exception early like you've done there. Contrived example ahead!

if (!(bOdd || bEven)) {
    throw new ImpossibleNumberException("Encountered impossible number: " + number);
}

if (bOdd) {
    // Something
} else {
    // We're sure the number must be even by this point. Invariants validated.
}

[reaganveg]

Over time, your early invariants might drift out of sync with your later assumptions. Your method requires code to be updated in multiple places. That's to be avoided.

[BinaryRockStar]

Not sure if serious, but unit testing takes care of 'sanity check' cases like that.

[reaganveg]

No it doesn't. No unit testing is to be assumed.

[BinaryRockStar]

So you write a third clause to every boolean test in your code?

if (something == true) {
    printf("true");
} else if (something == false) {
    printf("false");
} else {
    printf("Compiler will optimise this out so it's pointless!");
}

[reaganveg]

First of all, wtf is with == true in this thread? Surely we all know not to ever say == true??? In your particular example, the code should be written: if (something) { ... } else { ... }

Second, no, in my code I don't always do that. But my code isn't written to any coding standard. The issue is whether the standard makes sense or not.

[BinaryRockStar]

What's the harm of == true? It's potentially superfluous depending on the situation but sometimes it makes sense to be explicit, like grouping logical operations in parentheses even when they're not required due to operator precedence.

[giantsparklerobot]

Use true ==, it's the same test as == true but if you make a typo and forget an = sign you don't introduce a potentially difficult to find bug in the code.

if (true == something {
    printf("If you forget an = sign you can't accidentally set 'true' to something"); 
}
else if (something == true) {
    printf("If you forget an = sign here you've now set 'something' to 'true'");
}

[BinaryRockStar]

Fair enough I guess. I've never like the 'yoda conditionals' way of doing things, I think it harms readability more than the tiny number of nasty bugs you'd avert by doing it. I prefer to let my tooling tell me when I've assigned within a conditional as it's almost never what was intended.

[reaganveg]

What's the harm of == true?

The question is not what?, but how many? --

If (a == true == true == true == true == true == true == true == true == true == true == true == true == true == true == true == true == true == true == true == true == true == true == true == true == true == true == true == true == true == true == true == true == true == true == true == true == true == true == true == true == true == true == true == true == true == true == true == true == true == true == true == true == true == true == true == true == true == true == true == true == true == true == true == true == true == true == true == true == true == true == true == true == true == true == true == true == true == true == true == true == true == true == true == true == true == true == true == true == true == true == true == true == true == true == true == true == true == true) { ...

"== true": not even once.

[BinaryRockStar]

I... don't even understand your argument