Exceptions catching clutter code and make it hard to read
When I read well written code that checks to make sure all the input is of the correct format and type, and also catches all the things that possibly could go wrong, I find it difficult to understand the core of what the program is doing. It seems protection against the non-normal case obscures the normal case.
Exceptions catching clutter code and make it hard to read
When I read well written code that checks to make sure all the input is of the correct format and type, and also catches all the things that possibly could go wrong, I find it difficult to understand the core of what the program is doing. It seems protection against the non-normal case obscures the normal case.
Exceptions catching clutter code and make it hard to read
When I read well written code that checks to make sure all the input is of the correct format and type, and also catches all the things that possibly could go wrong, I find it difficult to understand the core of what the program is doing. It seems protection against the non-normal case obscures the normal case.
Exceptions catching clutter code and make it hard to read
When I read well written code that checks to make sure all the input is of the correct format and type, and also catches all the things that possibly could go wrong, I find it difficult to understand the core of what the program is doing. It seems protection against the non-normal case obscures the normal case.
What should plugins use: hooks, events or something else?
Consider an app that allows plugins to react to its program flow.
Is there a good way to communicate the intent that a class only contains referentially transparent methods?
My workplace mostly uses C# for writing code. I’m trying to figure out a good way to indicate that a class with referentially transparent methods is intended to be referentially transparent (i.e., given the same set of arguments, you will always get the same return value) for future maintainers. I’ve considered just using static classes for classes that are intended to only contain referentially transparent methods but received pushback from my colleagues as they prefer an approach to unit testing where all classes depending on are stubbed out which they use constructor DI to accomplish. I don’t see a disadvantage to not stubbing out referentially transparent functions for unit testing since they are almost always in-memory anyway but I’ve been unable to convince my colleagues of that.
Restructuring a large Chrome Extension/WebApp
I have a very complex Chrome Extension that has gotten too large to maintain in its current format. I’d like to restructure it, but I’m 15 and this is the first webapp or extension of it’s type I’ve built so I have no idea how to do it.
Restructuring a large Chrome Extension/WebApp
I have a very complex Chrome Extension that has gotten too large to maintain in its current format. I’d like to restructure it, but I’m 15 and this is the first webapp or extension of it’s type I’ve built so I have no idea how to do it.
Restructuring a large Chrome Extension/WebApp
I have a very complex Chrome Extension that has gotten too large to maintain in its current format. I’d like to restructure it, but I’m 15 and this is the first webapp or extension of it’s type I’ve built so I have no idea how to do it.
Restructuring a large Chrome Extension/WebApp
I have a very complex Chrome Extension that has gotten too large to maintain in its current format. I’d like to restructure it, but I’m 15 and this is the first webapp or extension of it’s type I’ve built so I have no idea how to do it.