• 9point6@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Except i right? Something like counter or index seems unconventional and unnecessarily verbose

    • SolarMech@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, but it’s easy to overuse it. If your for loop is much longer. For a few lines I’d agree, don’t bother using something longer.

      Code should scream out it’s intent for the reader to see. It’s why you are doing something that needs to be communicated, not what you are doing. “i”, “counter” or “index” all scream out what you are doing, not why. This is more important than the name being short (but for equal explanations of intent, go with the shorter name). The for loop does that already.

      If you can’t do that, be more precise. At the least make it “cardIndex”, or “searchIndex”. It makes it easier to connect the dots.

    • hellishharlot@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Index can be useful but start looking for mapping and sorting functions. Or foreach. If you really must index, sure go use index or I if it’s conventionally understood. But reading something like for I in e where p == r.status is really taxing to make sense of

      • 9point6@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Oh yeah, I map, filter and reduce pretty much everywhere I can. But sometimes you need the index and i is so commonly understood to be that, I’d say it could even be less legible to deviate from that convention

        • hellishharlot@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          In what world is

          for (int index = 0; index < objectToIterate; index++)
          {
              // DO YO THANG
          }
          

          less coherent than

          for (int i; i < objectToIterate; i++)
          {
              // DO YO THANG
          }
          
              • 9point6@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                It’s not incoherent, it just takes a tiny bit more effort to mentally parse as it’s not a stereotypical for loop. Maybe it’s just me, but let me try and explain

                With the i example if you’re familiar enough with a language, your brain will gloss over the unimportant syntax, you go straight to the comparison and then whether it’s incrementing or decrementing.

                With the other example, the first my brain did was notice it’s not following convention, which then pushes me to read the line carefully as there is probably a reason it doesn’t.

                I’m not saying it’s a huge difference or anything, but following code conventions like this makes things like code reviews much easier cumulatively.

      • indepndnt@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Honest question: is there a mapping function that handles the case where you need to loop through an iterable, and conditionally reference an item one or two steps ahead in the iterable?

        • drathvedro@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          In js there’s reduce. Something like

          arr.reduce((result, currentValue, currentIndex, original) => {
          if(currentIndex < original.length - 2
              && original[currentIndendex + 2] % 2 === 0 ) {
              result.push(currentValue / 2) 
          } else { 
              result.push(currentValue);
          }
          return result;
          }, []) 
          

          This would map arr and return halved values for elements for which the element two steps ahead is even. This should be available in languages where map is present. And sorry for possible typos, writing this on mobile.

        • xigoi@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          In Haskell, you could do something like map (\(thisItem, nextItem) -> …) (zip list (tail list))

        • hellishharlot@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Not that I’m aware of but that’s a condition where you’re thinking with an index. What’s the difference you’re looking for?

          • indepndnt@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Something like parsing a string that could have command codes in it of varying length. So I guess the difference is, is this a 1-, 2-, or 3-character code?

            I have something like this in a barcode generator and I keep trying to find a way to make it more elegant, but I keep coming back to index and offset as the simplest and most understandable approach.

    • UnfortunateShort@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’d say except indices in general. Just bloats every line where you need to use them. Imagine writing CUDA C++ where you regularly add and multiply stuff and every number is referenced via (usually) 1-3 indices. Horrible.