Related
Please pardon the vague title, but I don't know how else to put this question into a brief sentence.
I wrote the following method:
- (BOOL) isValueSet {
return self.myNumberValue.boolValue;
}
and one of my co-workers changed it to this:
- (BOOL) isValueSet {
BOOL ret = YES;
ret = self.myNumberValue.boolValue;
return ret;
}
Now, to my eyes, these do the exact same thing. However, my Junior Programmer eyes are used to looking at Java and JavaScript code, and I don't know the nuances of the Assembly(?) that Objective-C compiles down to. Is there a benefit that my co-worker added to this method by expanding it out like this?
There are typical two reason to do so:
Shorter expressions and statements;
introducing an identifier that can explain the source or purpose of a value;
Personally I would say that none of the above reasons is met here. But it is a stylistic question …
BTW: Personally I reduce such edits. In most cases it is a matter of personal style and in almost every case there is no right or wrong. So there is no reason to change the code of my co-worker. However, many, many developers think that such stylistic questions are important. (They discus in internet, whether a pointer * has to be placed with a left-hand space or a right-hand space or both. Very important!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) Likely they do so, because they have no idea of the important questions of software engineering.
I am trying to make a simple as2 shooter but when I try to shoot an enemy the bullet just go thru it and doesn't remove the enemy. I tried to put
if (hitTest(_root.vihollinen)==true
){
_root.vihollinen.remove();
this.removeMovieClip();
}
but nothing happens
Most of the code is just copy/paste because I don't know much about coding but I'm trying to learn!
https://www.dropbox.com/s/58u34tbeve6oile/game.zip
The most significant issue is that your enemy needs an Instance Name in order for the code to understand it. Simply click on your enemy movieclip, and add vihollinen to the Instance Name field at the top.
Next, your bullet code is close, but needs some adjustments. Here is your code:
_root["bullet" + bulletsFired].onEnterFrame = function(){
this._x += this.xmov;
this._y += this.ymov;
if (hitTest(_root.vihollinen)==true){
_root.vihollinen.remove();
this.removeMovieClip();
}
};
If you're ever using an onEnterFrame handler like that with a function, it's good practice to always refer to the current object with this, like so: if(this.hitTest(_root.vihollinen) == true){
remove() is not an ActionScript2 function. Try using unloadMovie() instead, like this: _root.vihollinen.unloadMovie()
Changing those three things will make your code function. Be sure that you try to go through each part of your code and understand it to the best of your ability - it'll make things much easier in the long run, even if it takes a long time to figure out why each part is there!
I remember many years back, when I was in school, one of my computer science teachers taught us that it was better to check for 'trueness' or 'equality' of a condition and not the negative stuff like 'inequality'.
Let me elaborate - If a piece of conditional code can be written by checking whether an expression is true or false, we should check the 'trueness'.
Example: Finding out whether a number is odd - it can be done in two ways:
if ( num % 2 != 0 )
{
// Number is odd
}
or
if ( num % 2 == 1 )
{
// Number is odd
}
(Please refer to the marked answer for a better example.)
When I was beginning to code, I knew that num % 2 == 0 implies the number is even, so I just put a ! there to check if it is odd. But he was like 'Don't check NOT conditions. Have the practice of checking the 'trueness' or 'equality' of conditions whenever possible.' And he recommended that I use the second piece of code.
I am not for or against either but I just wanted to know - what difference does it make? Please don't reply 'Technically the output will be the same' - we ALL know that. Is it a general programming practice or is it his own programming practice that he is preaching to others?
NOTE: I used C#/C++ style syntax for no reason. My question is equally applicable when using the IsNot, <> operators in VB etc. So readability of the '!' operator is just one of the issues. Not THE issue.
The problem occurs when, later in the project, more conditions are added - one of the projects I'm currently working on has steadily collected conditions over time (and then some of those conditions were moved into struts tags, then some to JSTL...) - one negative isn't hard to read, but 5+ is a nightmare, especially when someone decides to reorganize and negate the whole thing. Maybe on a new project, you'll write:
if (authorityLvl!=Admin){
doA();
}else{
doB();
}
Check back in a month, and it's become this:
if (!(authorityLvl!=Admin && authorityLvl!=Manager)){
doB();
}else{
doA();
}
Still pretty simple, but it takes another second.
Now give it another 5 to 10 years to rot.
(x%2!=0) certainly isn't a problem, but perhaps the best way to avoid the above scenario is to teach students not to use negative conditions as a general rule, in the hopes that they'll use some judgement before they do - because just saying that it could become a maintenance problem probably won't be enough motivation.
As an addendum, a better way to write the code would be:
userHasAuthority = (authorityLvl==Admin);
if (userHasAuthority){
doB();
else{
doA();
}
Now future coders are more likely to just add "|| authorityLvl==Manager", userHasAuthority is easier to move into a method, and even if the conditional is reorganized, it will only have one negative. Moreover, no one will add a security hole to the application by making a mistake while applying De Morgan's Law.
I will disagree with your old professor - checking for a NOT condition is fine as long as you are checking for a specific NOT condition. It actually meets his criteria: you would be checking that it is TRUE that a value is NOT something.
I grok what he means though - mostly the true condition(s) will be orders of magnitude smaller in quantity than the NOT conditions, therefore easier to test for as you are checking a smaller set of values.
I've had people tell me that it's to do with how "visible" the ping (!) character is when skim reading.
If someone habitually "skim reads" code - perhaps because they feel their regular reading speed is too slow - then the ! can be easily missed, giving them a critical mis-understanding of the code.
On the other hand, if a someone actually reads all of the code all of the time, then there is no issue.
Two very good developers I've worked with (and respect highily) will each write == false instead of using ! for similar reasons.
The key factor in my mind is less to do with what works for you (or me!), and more with what works for the guy maintaining the code. If the code is never going to be seen or maintained by anyone else, follow your personal whim; if the code needs to be maintained by others, better to steer more towards the middle of the road. A minor (trivial!) compromise on your part now, might save someone else a week of debugging later on.
Update: On further consideration, I would suggest factoring out the condition as a separate predicate function would give still greater maintainability:
if (isOdd(num))
{
// Number is odd
}
You still have to be careful about things like this:
if ( num % 2 == 1 )
{
// Number is odd
}
If num is negative and odd then depending on the language or implementation num % 2 could equal -1. On that note, there is nothing wrong with checking for the falseness if it simplifies at least the syntax of the check. Also, using != is more clear to me than just !-ing the whole thing as the ! may blend in with the parenthesis.
To only check the trueness you would have to do:
if ( num % 2 == 1 || num % 2 == -1 )
{
// Number is odd
}
That is just an example obviously. The point is that if using a negation allows for fewer checks or makes the syntax of the checks clear then that is clearly the way to go (as with the above example). Locking yourself into checking for trueness does not suddenly make your conditional more readable.
I remember hearing the same thing in my classes as well. I think it's more important to always use the more intuitive comparison, rather than always checking for the positive condition.
Really a very in-consequential issue. However, one negative to checking in this sense is that it only works for binary comparisons. If you were for example checking some property of a ternary numerical system you would be limited.
Replying to Bevan (it didn't fit in a comment):
You're right. !foo isn't always the same as foo == false. Let's see this example, in JavaScript:
var foo = true,
bar = false,
baz = null;
foo == false; // false
!foo; // false
bar == false; // true
!bar; // true
baz == false; // false (!)
!baz; // true
I also disagree with your teacher in this specific case. Maybe he was so attached to the generally good lesson to avoid negatives where a positive will do just fine, that he didn't see this tree for the forest.
Here's the problem. Today, you listen to him, and turn your code into:
// Print black stripe on odd numbers
int zebra(int num) {
if (num % 2 == 1) {
// Number is odd
printf("*****\n");
}
}
Next month, you look at it again and decide you don't like magic constants (maybe he teaches you this dislike too). So you change your code:
#define ZEBRA_PITCH 2
[snip pages and pages, these might even be in separate files - .h and .c]
// Print black stripe on non-multiples of ZEBRA_PITCH
int zebra(int num) {
if (num % ZEBRA_PITCH == 1) {
// Number is not a multiple of ZEBRA_PITCH
printf("*****\n");
}
}
and the world seems fine. Your output hasn't changed, and your regression testsuite passes.
But you're not done. You want to support mutant zebras, whose black stripes are thicker than their white stripes. You remember from months back that you originally coded it such that your code prints a black stripe wherever a white strip shouldn't be - on the not-even numbers. So all you have to do is to divide by, say, 3, instead of by 2, and you should be done. Right? Well:
#define DEFAULT_ZEBRA_PITCH 2
[snip pages and pages, these might even be in separate files - .h and .c]
// Print black stripe on non-multiples of pitch
int zebra(int num, int pitch) {
if (num % pitch == 1) {
// Number is odd
printf("*****\n");
}
}
Hey, what's this? You now have mostly-white zebras where you expected them to be mostly black!
The problem here is how think about numbers. Is a number "odd" because it isn't even, or because when dividing by 2, the remainder is 1? Sometimes your problem domain will suggest a preference for one, and in those cases I'd suggest you write your code to express that idiom, rather than fixating on simplistic rules such as "don't test for negations".
I often use this code pattern:
while(true) {
//do something
if(<some condition>) {
break;
}
}
Another programmer told me that this was bad practice and that I should replace it with the more standard:
while(!<some condition>) {
//do something
}
His reasoning was that you could "forget the break" too easily and have an endless loop. I told him that in the second example you could just as easily put in a condition which never returned true and so just as easily have an endless loop, so both are equally valid practices.
Further, I often prefer the former as it makes the code easier to read when you have multiple break points, i.e. multiple conditions which get out of the loop.
Can anyone enrichen this argument by adding evidence for one side or the other?
There is a discrepancy between the two examples. The first will execute the "do something" at least once every time even if the statement is never true. The second will only "do something" when the statement evaluates to true.
I think what you are looking for is a do-while loop. I 100% agree that while (true) is not a good idea because it makes it hard to maintain this code and the way you are escaping the loop is very goto esque which is considered bad practice.
Try:
do {
//do something
} while (!something);
Check your individual language documentation for the exact syntax. But look at this code, it basically does what is in the do, then checks the while portion to see if it should do it again.
To quote that noted developer of days gone by, Wordsworth:
...
In truth the prison, unto which we doom
Ourselves, no prison is; and hence for me,
In sundry moods, 'twas pastime to be bound
Within the Sonnet's scanty plot of ground;
Pleased if some souls (for such their needs must be)
Who have felt the weight of too much liberty,
Should find brief solace there, as I have found.
Wordsworth accepted the strict requirements of the sonnet as a liberating frame, rather than as a straightjacket. I'd suggest that the heart of "structured programming" is about giving up the freedom to build arbitrarily-complex flow graphs in favor of a liberating ease of understanding.
I freely agree that sometimes an early exit is the simplest way to express an action. However, my experience has been that when I force myself to use the simplest possible control structures (and really think about designing within those constraints), I most often find that the result is simpler, clearer code. The drawback with
while (true) {
action0;
if (test0) break;
action1;
}
is that it's easy to let action0 and action1 become larger and larger chunks of code, or to add "just one more" test-break-action sequence, until it becomes difficult to point to a specific line and answer the question, "What conditions do I know hold at this point?" So, without making rules for other programmers, I try to avoid the while (true) {...} idiom in my own code whenever possible.
When you can write your code in the form
while (condition) { ... }
or
while (!condition) { ... }
with no exits (break, continue, or goto) in the body, that form is preferred, because someone can read the code and understand the termination condition just by looking at the header. That's good.
But lots of loops don't fit this model, and the infinite loop with explicit exit(s) in the middle is an honorable model. (Loops with continue are usually harder to understand than loops with break.) If you want some evidence or authority to cite, look no further than Don Knuth's famous paper on Structured Programming with Goto Statements; you will find all the examples, arguments, and explanations you could want.
A minor point of idiom: writing while (true) { ... } brands you as an old Pascal programmer or perhaps these days a Java programmer. If you are writing in C or C++, the preferred idiom is
for (;;) { ... }
There's no good reason for this, but you should write it this way because this is the way C programmers expect to see it.
I prefer
while(!<some condition>) {
//do something
}
but I think it's more a matter of readability, rather than the potential to "forget the break." I think that forgetting the break is a rather weak argument, as that would be a bug and you'd find and fix it right away.
The argument I have against using a break to get out of an endless loop is that you're essentially using the break statement as a goto. I'm not religiously against using goto (if the language supports it, it's fair game), but I do try to replace it if there's a more readable alternative.
In the case of many break points I would replace them with
while( !<some condition> ||
!<some other condition> ||
!<something completely different> ) {
//do something
}
Consolidating all of the stop conditions this way makes it a lot easier to see what's going to end this loop. break statements could be sprinkled around, and that's anything but readable.
while (true) might make sense if you have many statements and you want to stop if any fail
while (true) {
if (!function1() ) return;
if (!function2() ) return;
if (!function3() ) return;
if (!function4() ) return;
}
is better than
while (!fail) {
if (!fail) {
fail = function1()
}
if (!fail) {
fail = function2()
}
........
}
Javier made an interesting comment on my earlier answer (the one quoting Wordsworth):
I think while(true){} is a more 'pure' construct than while(condition){}.
and I couldn't respond adequately in 300 characters (sorry!)
In my teaching and mentoring, I've informally defined "complexity" as "How much of the rest of the code I need to have in my head to be able to understand this single line or expression?" The more stuff I have to bear in mind, the more complex the code is. The more the code tells me explicitly, the less complex.
So, with the goal of reducing complexity, let me reply to Javier in terms of completeness and strength rather than purity.
I think of this code fragment:
while (c1) {
// p1
a1;
// p2
...
// pz
az;
}
as expressing two things simultaneously:
the (entire) body will be repeated as long as c1 remains true, and
at point 1, where a1 is performed, c1 is guaranteed to hold.
The difference is one of perspective; the first of these has to do with the outer, dynamic behavior of the entire loop in general, while the second is useful to understanding the inner, static guarantee which I can count on while thinking about a1 in particular. Of course the net effect of a1 may invalidate c1, requiring that I think harder about what I can count on at point 2, etc.
Let's put a specific (tiny) example in place to think about the condition and first action:
while (index < length(someString)) {
// p1
char c = someString.charAt(index++);
// p2
...
}
The "outer" issue is that the loop is clearly doing something within someString that can only be done as long as index is positioned in the someString. This sets up an expectation that we'll be modifying either index or someString within the body (at a location and manner not known until I examine the body) so that termination eventually occurs. That gives me both context and expectation for thinking about the body.
The "inner" issue is that we're guaranteed that the action following point 1 will be legal, so while reading the code at point 2 I can think about what is being done with a char value I know has been legally obtained. (We can't even evaluate the condition if someString is a null ref, but I'm also assuming we've guarded against that in the context around this example!)
In contrast, a loop of the form:
while (true) {
// p1
a1;
// p2
...
}
lets me down on both issues. At the outer level, I am left wondering whether this means that I really should expect this loop to cycle forever (e.g. the main event dispatch loop of an operating system), or whether there's something else going on. This gives me neither an explicit context for reading the body, nor an expectation of what constitutes progress toward (uncertain) termination.
At the inner level, I have absolutely no explicit guarantee about any circumstances that may hold at point 1. The condition true, which is of course true everywhere, is the weakest possible statement about what we can know at any point in the program. Understanding the preconditions of an action are very valuable information when trying to think about what the action accomplishes!
So, I suggest that the while (true) ... idiom is much more incomplete and weak, and therefore more complex, than while (c1) ... according to the logic I've described above.
The problem is that not every algorithm sticks to the "while(cond){action}" model.
The general loop model is like this :
loop_prepare
loop:
action_A
if(cond) exit_loop
action_B
goto loop
after_loop_code
When there is no action_A you can replace it by :
loop_prepare
while(cond)
action_B
after_loop_code
When there is no action_B you can replace it by :
loop_prepare
do action_A
while(cond)
after_loop_code
In the general case, action_A will be executed n times and action_B will be executed (n-1) times.
A real life example is : print all the elements of a table separated by commas.
We want all the n elements with (n-1) commas.
You always can do some tricks to stick to the while-loop model, but this will always repeat code or check twice the same condition (for every loops) or add a new variable. So you will always be less efficient and less readable than the while-true-break loop model.
Example of (bad) "trick" : add variable and condition
loop_prepare
b=true // one more local variable : more complex code
while(b): // one more condition on every loop : less efficient
action_A
if(cond) b=false // the real condition is here
else action_B
after_loop_code
Example of (bad) "trick" : repeat the code. The repeated code must not be forgotten while modifying one of the two sections.
loop_prepare
action_A
while(cond):
action_B
action_A
after_loop_code
Note : in the last example, the programmer can obfuscate (willingly or not) the code by mixing the "loop_prepare" with the first "action_A", and action_B with the second action_A. So he can have the feeling he is not doing this.
The first is OK if there are many ways to break from the loop, or if the break condition cannot be expressed easily at the top of the loop (for example, the content of the loop needs to run halfway but the other half must not run, on the last iteration).
But if you can avoid it, you should, because programming should be about writing very complex things in the most obvious way possible, while also implementing features correctly and performantly. That's why your friend is, in the general case, correct. Your friend's way of writing loop constructs is much more obvious (assuming the conditions described in the preceding paragraph do not obtain).
There's a substantially identical question already in SO at Is WHILE TRUE…BREAK…END WHILE a good design?. #Glomek answered (in an underrated post):
Sometimes it's very good design. See Structured Programing With Goto Statements by Donald Knuth for some examples. I use this basic idea often for loops that run "n and a half times," especially read/process loops. However, I generally try to have only one break statement. This makes it easier to reason about the state of the program after the loop terminates.
Somewhat later, I responded with the related, and also woefully underrated, comment (in part because I didn't notice Glomek's the first time round, I think):
One fascinating article is Knuth's "Structured Programming with go to Statements" from 1974 (available in his book 'Literate Programming', and probably elsewhere too). It discusses, amongst other things, controlled ways of breaking out of loops, and (not using the term) the loop-and-a-half statement.
Ada also provides looping constructs, including
loopname:
loop
...
exit loopname when ...condition...;
...
end loop loopname;
The original question's code is similar to this in intent.
One difference between the referenced SO item and this is the 'final break'; that is a single-shot loop which uses break to exit the loop early. There have been questions on whether that is a good style too - I don't have the cross-reference at hand.
Sometime you need infinite loop, for example listening on port or waiting for connection.
So while(true)... should not categorized as good or bad, let situation decide what to use
It depends on what you’re trying to do, but in general I prefer putting the conditional in the while.
It’s simpler, since you don't need another test in the code.
It’s easier to read, since you don’t have to go hunting for a break inside the loop.
You’re reinventing the wheel. The whole point of while is to do something as long as a test is true. Why subvert that by putting the break condition somewhere else?
I’d use a while(true) loop if I was writing a daemon or other process that should run until it gets killed.
If there's one (and only one) non-exceptional break condition, putting that condition directly into the control-flow construct (the while) is preferable. Seeing while(true) { ... } makes me as a code-reader think that there's no simple way to enumerate the break conditions and makes me think "look carefully at this and think about carefully about the break conditions (what is set before them in the current loop and what might have been set in the previous loop)"
In short, I'm with your colleague in the simplest case, but while(true){ ... } is not uncommon.
The perfect consultant's answer: it depends. Most cases, the right thing to do is either use a while loop
while (condition is true ) {
// do something
}
or a "repeat until" which is done in a C-like language with
do {
// do something
} while ( condition is true);
If either of these cases works, use them.
Sometimes, like in the inner loop of a server, you really mean that a program should keep going until something external interrupts it. (Consider, eg, an httpd daemon -- it isn't going to stop unless it crashes or it's stopped by a shutdown.)
THEN AND ONLY THEN use a while(1):
while(1) {
accept connection
fork child process
}
Final case is the rare occasion where you want to do some part of the function before terminating. In that case, use:
while(1) { // or for(;;)
// do some stuff
if (condition met) break;
// otherwise do more stuff.
}
I think the benefit of using "while(true)" is probably to let multiple exit condition easier to write especially if these exit condition has to appear in different location within the code block. However, for me, it could be chaotic when I have to dry-run the code to see how the code interacts.
Personally I will try to avoid while(true). The reason is that whenever I look back at the code written previously, I usually find that I need to figure out when it runs/terminates more than what it actually does. Therefore, having to locate the "breaks" first is a bit troublesome for me.
If there is a need for multiple exit condition, I tend to refactor the condition determining logic into a separate function so that the loop block looks clean and easier to understand.
No, that's not bad since you may not always know the exit condition when you setup the loop or may have multiple exit conditions. However it does require more care to prevent an infinite loop.
He is probably correct.
Functionally the two can be identical.
However, for readability and understanding program flow, the while(condition) is better. The break smacks more of a goto of sorts. The while (condition) is very clear on the conditions which continue the loop, etc. That doesn't mean break is wrong, just can be less readable.
A few advantages of using the latter construct that come to my mind:
it's easier to understand what the loop is doing without looking for breaks in the loop's code.
if you don't use other breaks in the loop code, there's only one exit point in your loop and that's the while() condition.
generally ends up being less code, which adds to readability.
I prefer the while(!) approach because it more clearly and immediately conveys the intent of the loop.
There has been much talk about readability here and its very well constructed but as with all loops that are not fixed in size (ie. do while and while) you run at a risk.
His reasoning was that you could "forget the break" too easily and have an endless loop.
Within a while loop you are in fact asking for a process that runs indefinitely unless something happens, and if that something does not happen within a certain parameter, you will get exactly what you wanted... an endless loop.
What your friend recommend is different from what you did. Your own code is more akin to
do{
// do something
}while(!<some condition>);
which always run the loop at least once, regardless of the condition.
But there are times breaks are perfectly okay, as mentioned by others. In response to your friend's worry of "forget the break", I often write in the following form:
while(true){
// do something
if(<some condition>) break;
// continue do something
}
By good indentation, the break point is clear to first time reader of the code, look as structural as codes which break at the beginning or bottom of a loop.
It's not so much the while(true) part that's bad, but the fact that you have to break or goto out of it that is the problem. break and goto are not really acceptable methods of flow control.
I also don't really see the point. Even in something that loops through the entire duration of a program, you can at least have like a boolean called Quit or something that you set to true to get out of the loop properly in a loop like while(!Quit)... Not just calling break at some arbitrary point and jumping out,
using loops like
while(1) { do stuff }
is necessary in some situations. If you do any embedded systems programming (think microcontrollers like PICs, MSP430, and DSP programming) then almost all your code will be in a while(1) loop. When coding for DSPs sometimes you just need a while(1){} and the rest of the code is an interrupt service routine (ISR).
If you loop over an external condition (not being changed inside the loop), you use while(t), where t is the condition. However, if the loop stops when the condition changes inside the loop, it's more convenient to have the exit point explicitly marked with break, instead of waiting for it to happen on the next iteration of the loop:
while (true) {
...
a := a + 1;
if (a > 10) break; // right here!
...
}
As was already mentioned in a few other answers, the less code you have to keep in your head while reading a particular line, the better.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
As far as variable naming conventions go, should iterators be named i or something more semantic like count? If you don't use i, why not? If you feel that i is acceptable, are there cases of iteration where it shouldn't be used?
Depends on the context I suppose. If you where looping through a set of Objects in some
collection then it should be fairly obvious from the context what you are doing.
for(int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
{
// i is well known here to be the index
objectCollection[i].SomeProperty = someValue;
}
However if it is not immediately clear from the context what it is you are doing, or if you are making modifications to the index you should use a variable name that is more indicative of the usage.
for(int currentRow = 0; currentRow < numRows; currentRow++)
{
for(int currentCol = 0; currentCol < numCols; currentCol++)
{
someTable[currentRow][currentCol] = someValue;
}
}
"i" means "loop counter" to a programmer. There's nothing wrong with it.
Here's another example of something that's perfectly okay:
foreach (Product p in ProductList)
{
// Do something with p
}
I tend to use i, j, k for very localized loops (only exist for a short period in terms of number of source lines). For variables that exist over a larger source area, I tend to use more detailed names so I can see what they're for without searching back in the code.
By the way, I think that the naming convention for these came from the early Fortran language where I was the first integer variable (A - H were floats)?
i is acceptable, for certain. However, I learned a tremendous amount one semester from a C++ teacher I had who refused code that did not have a descriptive name for every single variable. The simple act of naming everything descriptively forced me to think harder about my code, and I wrote better programs after that course, not from learning C++, but from learning to name everything. Code Complete has some good words on this same topic.
i is fine, but something like this is not:
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
{
for (int j = 0; j < 10; j++)
{
string s = datarow[i][j].ToString(); // or worse
}
}
Very common for programmers to inadvertently swap the i and the j in the code, especially if they have bad eyesight or their Windows theme is "hotdog". This is always a "code smell" for me - it's kind of rare when this doesn't get screwed up.
i is so common that it is acceptable, even for people that love descriptive variable names.
What is absolutely unacceptable (and a sin in my book) is using i,j, or k in any other context than as an integer index in a loop.... e.g.
foreach(Input i in inputs)
{
Process(i);
}
i is definitely acceptable. Not sure what kind of justification I need to make -- but I do use it all of the time, and other very respected programmers do as well.
Social validation, I guess :)
Yes, in fact it's preferred since any programmer reading your code will understand that it's simply an iterator.
What is the value of using i instead of a more specific variable name? To save 1 second or 10 seconds or maybe, maybe, even 30 seconds of thinking and typing?
What is the cost of using i? Maybe nothing. Maybe the code is so simple that using i is fine. But maybe, maybe, using i will force developers who come to this code in the future to have to think for a moment "what does i mean here?" They will have to think: "is it an index, a count, an offset, a flag?" They will have to think: "is this change safe, is it correct, will I be off by 1?"
Using i saves time and intellectual effort when writing code but may end up costing more intellectual effort in the future, or perhaps even result in the inadvertent introduction of defects due to misunderstanding the code.
Generally speaking, most software development is maintenance and extension, so the amount of time spent reading your code will vastly exceed the amount of time spent writing it.
It's very easy to develop the habit of using meaningful names everywhere, and once you have that habit it takes only a few seconds more to write code with meaningful names, but then you have code which is easier to read, easier to understand, and more obviously correct.
I use i for short loops.
The reason it's OK is that I find it utterly implausible that someone could see a declaration of iterator type, with initializer, and then three lines later claim that it's not clear what the variable represents. They're just pretending, because they've decided that "meaningful variable names" must mean "long variable names".
The reason I actually do it, is that I find that using something unrelated to the specific task at hand, and that I would only ever use in a small scope, saves me worrying that I might use a name that's misleading, or ambiguous, or will some day be useful for something else in the larger scope. The reason it's "i" rather than "q" or "count" is just convention borrowed from mathematics.
I don't use i if:
The loop body is not small, or
the iterator does anything other than advance (or retreat) from the start of a range to the finish of the loop:
i doesn't necessarily have to go in increments of 1 so long as the increment is consistent and clear, and of course might stop before the end of the iterand, but if it ever changes direction, or is unmodified by an iteration of the loop (including the devilish use of iterator.insertAfter() in a forward loop), I try to remember to use something different. This signals "this is not just a trivial loop variable, hence this may not be a trivial loop".
If the "something more semantic" is "iterator" then there is no reason not to use i; it is a well understood idiom.
i think i is completely acceptable in for-loop situations. i have always found this to be pretty standard and never really run into interpretation issues when i is used in this instance. foreach-loops get a little trickier and i think really depends on your situation. i rarely if ever use i in foreach, only in for loops, as i find i to be too un-descriptive in these cases. for foreach i try to use an abbreviation of the object type being looped. e.g:
foreach(DataRow dr in datatable.Rows)
{
//do stuff to/with datarow dr here
}
anyways, just my $0.02.
It helps if you name it something that describes what it is looping through. But I usually just use i.
As long as you are either using i to count loops, or part of an index that goes from 0 (or 1 depending on PL) to n, then I would say i is fine.
Otherwise its probably easy to name i something meaningful it its more than just an index.
I should point out that i and j are also mathematical notation for matrix indices. And usually, you're looping over an array. So it makes sense.
As long as you're using it temporarily inside a simple loop and it's obvious what you're doing, sure. That said, is there no other short word you can use instead?
i is widely known as a loop iterator, so you're actually more likely to confuse maintenance programmers if you use it outside of a loop, but if you use something more descriptive (like filecounter), it makes code nicer.
It depends.
If you're iterating over some particular set of data then I think it makes more sense to use a descriptive name. (eg. filecounter as Dan suggested).
However, if you're performing an arbitrary loop then i is acceptable. As one work mate described it to me - i is a convention that means "this variable is only ever modified by the for loop construct. If that's not true, don't use i"
The use of i, j, k for INTEGER loop counters goes back to the early days of FORTRAN.
Personally I don't have a problem with them so long as they are INTEGER counts.
But then I grew up on FORTRAN!
my feeling is that the concept of using a single letter is fine for "simple" loops, however, i learned to use double-letters a long time ago and it has worked out great.
i asked a similar question last week and the following is part of my own answer:// recommended style ● // "typical" single-letter style
●
for (ii=0; ii<10; ++ii) { ● for (i=0; i<10; ++i) {
for (jj=0; jj<10; ++jj) { ● for (j=0; j<10; ++j) {
mm[ii][jj] = ii * jj; ● m[i][j] = i * j;
} ● }
} ● }
in case the benefit isn't immediately obvious: searching through code for any single letter will find many things that aren't what you're looking for. the letter i occurs quite often in code where it isn't the variable you're looking for.
i've been doing it this way for at least 10 years.
note that plenty of people commented that either/both of the above are "ugly"...
I am going to go against the grain and say no.
For the crowd that says "i is understood as an iterator", that may be true, but to me that is the equivalent of comments like 'Assign the value 5 to variable Y. Variable names like comment should explain the why/what not the how.
To use an example from a previous answer:
for(int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
{
// i is well known here to be the index
objectCollection[i].SomeProperty = someValue;
}
Is it that much harder to just use a meaningful name like so?
for(int objectCollectionIndex = 0; objectCollectionIndex < 10; objectCollectionIndex ++)
{
objectCollection[objectCollectionIndex].SomeProperty = someValue;
}
Granted the (borrowed) variable name objectCollection is pretty badly named too.