Re: Your wish is my command

Posted Dec 27, 2014 20:58 UTC (Sat) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
In reply to: Re: Your wish is my command by ldo
Parent article: The "too small to fail" memory-allocation rule

What do you mean by "with a loop"? And feel free to try it yourself, since you're such a religious fanatic of do-nothing loops.

Re: What do you mean by "with a loop"?

Posted Dec 27, 2014 21:43 UTC (Sat) by ldo (guest, #40946) [Link] (8 responses)

My code has examples of loops where errors can occur in them. So I need to deal gracefully with that. Let’s see you offer an example that does the same.

And while we’re at it, your tun.c example fails to recover if it cannot create its sysfs device files.

Re: What do you mean by "with a loop"?

Posted Dec 27, 2014 22:01 UTC (Sat) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link] (7 responses)

> My code has examples of loops where errors can occur in them. So I need to deal gracefully with that.
No you don't. Just split them up into free-standing functions, instead of 300-line monstrosities.

The Linux kernel manages to do that just fine, somehow.

In particular, your block near line 480 will look like this:
https://gist.github.com/Cyberax/3a7796231be66d0f64cc
(no, I'm not going to check it in details). It's pretty clear that simply by splitting some logic into a function you can decrease nesting level by 3.

And let me reiterate, your code is a mess. For example, you use 'break' to normally exit the outer loop from within the 'if' statement here: https://github.com/ldo/dvd_menu_animator/blob/master/spuh...

Why do you even bother with 'for' loops?

Re: And let me reiterate, your code is a mess.

Posted Dec 28, 2014 6:29 UTC (Sun) by ldo (guest, #40946) [Link] (6 responses)

At least it works, unlike your code.

Your for-loop will never iterate.
Where is PixBuf supposed to be local to?

Pot calling the kettle black, as it were?

Re: And let me reiterate, your code is a mess.

Posted Dec 28, 2014 6:31 UTC (Sun) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link] (5 responses)

I have not claimed that my code works (as I wrote it on a dumb web form without even automatic indentation). But it's far easier to understand and fix than your mess of twisty little loops, all alike.

Re: I have not claimed that my code works

Posted Dec 28, 2014 6:36 UTC (Sun) by ldo (guest, #40946) [Link] (4 responses)

Then what is the point? I thought you were trying to demonstrate that you could do the same thing more simply and/or clearly than I could. But instead you have totally stuffed it up.

Re: I have not claimed that my code works

Posted Dec 28, 2014 6:41 UTC (Sun) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link] (3 responses)

I don't really care to try to understand what your code actually means. It's so convoluted that it's absolute unmaintainable.

If you can make a reasonable description of what it does - I can guarantee that it's possible to write it far cleaner then what you have.

Re: If you can make a reasonable description of what it does

Posted Dec 28, 2014 21:33 UTC (Sun) by ldo (guest, #40946) [Link] (2 responses)

Did you not read the comments? There are even Python docstrings; did you not see those?

Re: If you can make a reasonable description of what it does

Posted Dec 28, 2014 22:37 UTC (Sun) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link] (1 responses)

No, they don't describe the algorithm. Please, provide a coherent description in a natural language (I understand English, Russian, Ukrainian, German and Polish) then I can provide you its implementation that will be more compact and easy-to-understand than yours.

Re: Please, provide a coherent description

Posted Dec 29, 2014 17:26 UTC (Mon) by ldo (guest, #40946) [Link]

Funny, I didn’t see any such thing in the code examples you saw fit to refer me to. Yet you expected me to cope with them. And my code already has far more comments than they did.

What’s good for the goose, eh?