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 2 years ago.
Improve this question
For example:
try {
int n = scan.nextInt();
System.out.println("\nYour number is: "+n);
}catch(Exception e) {
System.out.println("You entered a value thats not valid.");
It seems like every program with a catch statement in it has the Exception called e. Is this like an unwritten rule or something?
The same reason why camelCase is generally used in java for naming, you can use snake_case but it's not recommended and makes your code harder to read for whatever reason.
String helloWorld;
String hello_world;//seems a bit off doesn't it.
Because of conventions. Naming things is hard. Having a common vocabulary helps understanding each other's code.
IMHO, no there is no such rule, it is just shorter like that... It is up to you and to your programming habit.
Related
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 9 months ago.
This post was edited and submitted for review 9 months ago and failed to reopen the post:
Original close reason(s) were not resolved
Improve this question
I have integer status response from a REST API. I need to return string, so I use it like
return "" + statusCode
Is it fine way to do that or is it costly? Or should I use String.valueOf() or is there another alternative?
No need - if you decompile the class file, you'll see that the compiler does this for you anyway. I think this makes the code very readable, however you might want to ask yourself why are you doing this anyway... if you are confident that returning a number as a string from a method is correct, this is a good way to do it, IMO.
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 6 years ago.
Improve this question
Personally, I write my Java like this:
class xyz {
...
}
OR
if (condition) {
...
}
etcetera...
In so many examples, I see code written like this:
class xyz
{
...
}
OR
if (condition)
{
...
}
etcetera...
To me, my way makes the most sense because not only does it take less lines to write, but (again, in my opinion) looks more proper and professional. I'd love to know people's opinions - and reasoning behind them - as to which form is better and why.
The first one with opening braces on the same line is almost the standard Java programming guideline for years.
The original Sun Java guideline, that was never updated since 1999.
http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/documentation/codeconventions-141270.html
Google Java guideline
https://google.github.io/styleguide/javaguide.html#s4.1-braces
Android style
https://source.android.com/source/code-style.html
On the opposite side, many open source platforms like Apache/maven advocate brace in new line
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 8 years ago.
Improve this question
Ok so if you want to check if a list is not empty
we would need to do something like
if(! mylist.isEmpty())
this affects code readability, so how can we write the same thing in a readable way, calling out negation of condition check.
One of possibility is to have a static helper function like:
static boolean not(boolean condition) { return !condition;}
How bad is this idea? Are there other options in apache common or guava etc? Or any other way you have achieved this?
It is not a bad idea in itself and it will not affect anything.
However I think many people will disagree with you regarding the "unreadability" of the normal way of negating things using !.
if ( ! list.isEmpty() )
versus
if ( not( list.isEmpty() ) )
does not make much of a difference IMHO.
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 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I have to deal with a domain object that's real name is 351K-Report. According to the Java naming convention its forbidden to use a number at the beginning of an identifier.
I don't want to fully spell out the number. And, I also think that it's a bad idea to place an underline in front of the number.
But what is the recommended alternative?
UPDATE
There are also other reports, like SpecReport, TopReport, LF10Report and so on. So I'm very doubtful that inverting parts of the noun changes the meaning of the whole project.
Maybe reverse it. For example:
report351K
That would be very bad..
Imagine this:
int 1d = 3;
double d = 1d * 2;
What would be d?
Alternatives:
Since variables that begins with _ usually indicates for class member, I would use report351K.
if you really want to do this then _351KReport but I don't think you should do this. try to make something meaningful of it and at the same time is convineient to Java
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 8 years ago.
Improve this question
Question:i just want to ask 2 question, if i write 2 below codes in java then which one is faster in terms of cpu cycles and why? Someone told me that 1st option is not correct in terms of cpu cycle because in that 2 conditions are checked i.e if and !
boolean flag = true;
//OPTION ONE
if(!flag) {
//error
} else {
//got the answer
}
//OPTION TWO
if(flag) {
//got the answer
} else {
//error
}
There is no practical difference on a modern JVM implementation.
The compiler will do the right thing, don't worry about it. In fact, if it can prove that flag always has a constant value of true at compile time it will eliminate the check and the unreachable branch entirely.