DevOps Zone is brought to you in partnership with:

Trisha has developed Java applications for a range of industries, including finance, manufacturing and non-profit, for companies of all sizes. She has expertise in Java high performance systems, is passionate about enabling developer productivity, and right now is getting to grips with working in an Open Source fashion as a developer for MongoDB Inc, where she contributes to the Java driver and Morphia. Trisha blogs regularly on subjects that she thinks developers and other humans should care about, she’s a leader of the Sevilla Java & MongoDB User Groups, a key member of the London Java Community and a Java Champion - she believes we shouldn't all have to make the same mistakes again and again. Trisha is a DZone MVB and is not an employee of DZone and has posted 66 posts at DZone. You can read more from them at their website. View Full User Profile

Readable, Succinct, or Just Plain Short?

  • submit to reddit

Which is more readable?

releaseVersion = version.substring(0, version.indexOf('-SNAPSHOT'))


releaseVersion = version[0..-10]

Given a value of 0.109-SNAPSHOT for version, they both give the same result. And I’m tempted by the second, because it’s shorter. But I’m going to go with the first one - not because it’s more Java-ish and I’m scared of Groovy syntax, but because it’s easier to understand if/when something goes wrong.

For example: if version doesn’t conform to the expected pattern, the two code fragments fail in two different ways. If version doesn’t contain -SNAPSHOT, the first will fail with:

java.lang.StringIndexOutOfBoundsException: String index out of range: -1

whereas the second will either arbitrarily slice the last 9 characters off the end of whatever the String does contain, or if it’s too short you’ll get something like:

java.lang.ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException: Negative array index [-10] too large for array size 5

When you, the developer, see this error (or notice your mangled version number) and look at the failing line of code, you’ll have two different experiences. When looking at the second example, if you didn’t write it in the first place or if you have a memory as shocking as mine, you won’t get any clues from that code as to what the purpose is - you’ll see what it does (chop the last 9 characters off the version string), but not why. You can “fix” the problem by adding an arbitrary 9 characters onto your version.

If you’re looking at the first example, however, you’ll see the intent right there - it’s trying to chop the string -SNAPSHOT (and any characters that might happen to come after it) off the end of the version string. With this line of code, if you checked the value of version and saw it didn’t have the correct suffix, you’d have a good idea of what the problem is and how to solve it.

There’s a third way, that potentially keeps the descriptiveness (is that a word?) of the first solution and makes it a bit shorter and Groovier:

releaseVersion = version[0..<version.indexOf('-SNAPSHOT')]

You need the less-than sign plonked in there to make it work correctly, which I find a bit jarring, but it does work. It’s a little more succinct than the original Java syntax and retains the intent.

So in conclusion: yes, shorter code is generally better (and often more readable). But I don’t believe in sacrificing code that expresses the intent in order to reduce the number of characters used. We’re not living in a memory-poor world any more, and code is meant to be read by humans as well as computers. Let’s make our code easy to understand when it goes wrong, not simply the shortest way to do something when the stars are all perfectly aligned.

Published at DZone with permission of Trisha Gee, author and DZone MVB. (source)

(Note: Opinions expressed in this article and its replies are the opinions of their respective authors and not those of DZone, Inc.)


John J. Franey replied on Thu, 2014/07/03 - 12:16pm

Why rely on the choice of implementation to express intent?  Instead, wrap the implementation in a member function with a descriptive name.  The intent is is expressed by the method name.

String parseReleaseFrom(String version) {
    // pick an implementation, even the most obfuscated
    // handle exceptions, too.

// then:
releaseVersion = parseReleaseFrom(version);
view sourceprint?

Trisha Gee replied on Fri, 2014/07/04 - 1:02am in response to: John J. Franey

I have actually ended up doing this, because I added more checking to the version String.  I also tried to make it more descriptive by added tests for each of the cases.

But this merely backs up my point - if you want to be clear about the intent, you probably need more code.

Lund Wolfe replied on Sat, 2014/07/05 - 2:06am

I agree that you shouldn't be afraid to give the code meaning.  Brevity is of no benefit to the computer or the developer.

Hardcoding magic numbers, even with a descriptive comment, is much worse than using explicit source code in the first place.  The assumption is built in and the fix will be obvious if that assumption is invalidated.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.