> My word, something can be redundant (not conceding that point) and not "just plain wrong."
I think we can agree to disagree. I'm strictly against redundancy if it doesn't serve a well-defined purpose.
> Your language hate and insistence that the programmer himself is one of the "problems" is why people don't do code reviews, and why people get overly defensive if you offer constructive criticism of code. Your criticism is not constructive.
I would phrase my criticism entirely different if the recipient was someone who asked for my commentary and not someone who felt confident enough to write a blogpost on how to start refactoring code.
> I'm strictly against redundancy if it doesn't serve a well-defined purpose.
Well, a good optimizing compiler might factor redundant checks out. The JVM has one of the best optimizing compilers around... Sometimes source code clarity is better than "absolute correctness", especially when we're discussing something trivial.
> I would phrase my criticism entirely different if the recipient was someone who asked for my commentary and not someone who felt confident enough to write a blogpost on how to start refactoring code.
Right, because we should seek out excuses to be nasty to others. How about we just try to be constructive as much as possible?
I think we can agree to disagree. I'm strictly against redundancy if it doesn't serve a well-defined purpose.
> Your language hate and insistence that the programmer himself is one of the "problems" is why people don't do code reviews, and why people get overly defensive if you offer constructive criticism of code. Your criticism is not constructive.
I would phrase my criticism entirely different if the recipient was someone who asked for my commentary and not someone who felt confident enough to write a blogpost on how to start refactoring code.