• Avid Amoeba
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    Yes clearly someone has to read the blocks at least once to ensure they are correct.

    In subsequent reads, when I’m interested in the second block out of two, say during a defect analysis, I don’t have to read the first one to be sure I’m going to reach the second. I can straight head for the second one and any subsequent stuff I care about. Multiple returns force me to read both blocks. I don’t know what else to tell you. To me this is obvious and I think it’s probably even provable. I don’t know about you but I have to read a lot of existing code and every bit helps. We have pretty strict code style guides for that reason.

    • PeriodicallyPedantic
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      If you’re reading the control flow, and the control flow tells you the first block isn’t being entered, then it doesn’t matter if the first block contains an early return or not, because it wasn’t being entered. If it was being entered then you have to read it anyway to make sure it’s not manipulating state or leaking resources.

      To use your example: in subsequent reads, when I’m interested in the second block out of n, say during defect analysis, I can head straight to the second block in either case since control flow shows the first block was skipped - but in the case of early return from the second block I can stop reading, but in the case of a single return I need to read the flow for all subsequent n blocks and the business logic of any subsequent blocks that get entered. The early return is a guarantee that all subsequent blocks may be ignored.

      To me this is also obvious. I’ve been doing this for quite a while and 95% of the time, reviewing and debugging code with a single return is far more tedious.

      • Avid Amoeba
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Clearly I’m not referring to an if/else by saying two blocks. Even in my original example I show the exact issue. You don’t understand it. I can’t explain it better.

        • PeriodicallyPedantic
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          Have you stopped to consider why you can’t explain it better? Perhaps the reason is because you’re wrong.

          Your toy example does not show the issue you think it shows. You’ve moved your cleanup block away from the context of what it’s cleaning up, meaning that you’ve got variables leaking out of their scopes. Your cleanup code is now much more complex and fragile to changes in each of the blocks its cleaning up after.

          You tried to use your toy example to show A is better, but then we showed that actually B is just as good. So fix your toy example to show what you actually want to say, because everything you said so far depends on you setting different standards for each scenario.

          • Avid Amoeba
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            Have you stopped to consider why you can’t explain it better? Perhaps the reason is because you’re wrong.

            Yes I have. You’ve already assumed I’m not too bright more than once and worked from there. There’s no point in investing more work on my end. If what I said worked, good. If not, that’s fine too.

            • PeriodicallyPedantic
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              Now that’s the pot calling the kettle black.

              What work have you even invested? You’ve just repeatedly restarted your original stance. But sure, whatever.