Welcome to Software Development on Codidact!
Will you help us build our independent community of developers helping developers? We're small and trying to grow. We welcome questions about all aspects of software development, from design to code to QA and more. Got questions? Got answers? Got code you'd like someone to review? Please join us.
Comments on Is omitting braces for single statements bad practice?
Parent
Is omitting braces for single statements bad practice?
Consider this code:
while(arr[index] != 0)
index++;
vs
while(arr[index] != 0) {
index++;
}
Personally, I prefer the first. The fact that the braces are not needed makes them -- unnecessary. :)
To me, it's just clutter that wastes a line. Or 2 if you're one of them that also want the opening brace on a new line. The line waste can be avoided though, if you do like this:
while(arr[index] != 0) index++;
I often do that, and I like the style. Partially because it makes those loops stand out from loops with braces.
One argument I've heard for always using braces is that if you want to add another statement, then you need to remember adding braces or you will have bugs that can be hard to find. For instance, this would be an endless loop:
while(arr[index] != 0)
println("No zero found");
index++;
While this is technically true that this mistake can be done, I find it a bit meh as an argument. If you're using an editor that autoindents the code, this mistake would be spotted immediately. And since using such an editor is something that you should do anyway, the point of this argument is a bit moot.
Plus, even though I have often coded without such an editor, I cannot remember ever doing that mistake. It feels like a mistake that one could do if you're used to Python. But adjusting coding standards of C, C++, Java and such to not confuse Python coders does not really seem like the right path to go.
Apart from this argument, I have not really seen anything else than the consistency argument. That always using the same style is consistent. Well it's true, but consistency is not ALWAYS good.
Have I missed something here? What do you say? Is omitting braces for single statements bad practice?
> While \[the Apple "goto fail bug"\] is pretty interesting, it's anecdotal evidence. I understand that it's still possi …
4y ago
Not using braces is considered bad practice by widely recognized industry coding standards (MISRA-C:2012 rule, 15.6, CER …
3y ago
Already good answers, but I can provide a slightly different perspective here: always use braces if there is a risk of g …
4y ago
I'm in the "Use the braces. Just use them every time" camp [^1]. As others have suggested you or your tooling will catch …
4y ago
Advantages of Mandatory Braces When in Rome, do as the Romans do. Since every popular coding standard for java manda …
4y ago
While there are already good answers, i want to give yet another reason to always use `{}`: Macros. Lets consider thi …
1y ago
Post
While [the Apple "goto fail bug"] is pretty interesting, it's anecdotal evidence. I understand that it's still possible to produce bugs like this. One could also reasonably argue that it could have been avoided if they used
else if
instead ofif
or didn't usegoto
.
Aviation safety is built, pretty much completely, on that kind of "anecdotal evidence"; and, on the whole, it's pretty successful (it's part of why virtually every airliner accident makes headlines, but very few car accidents do, even though in aggregate, far more people die in car accidents than in airliner accidents). So are many other safety regulations. Basically, when something goes wrong, a bunch of very smart people sit down and try to figure out what went wrong, what allowed it to go wrong, and what change to the existing regulations or practices would have prevented it from going wrong.
I can't help but notice that, in your example, you suggest that
while(arr[index] != 0) {
index++;
}
should be shortened to
while(arr[index] != 0)
index++;
because the compound statement delimeters are "unnecessary". But you don't take the obvious next step and suggest to instead write
while(arr[index++] != 0);
which will save you yet another line. It also saves you from, completely unnecessarily, naming the iterator variable separately on that second line. Why not?
I'll hazard a guess: because that will trip people up. It's perfectly valid code. It'll accomplish the same thing. It'll almost certainly have the same side effects in all of C, C++ and Java. And because people aren't used to that kind of construct, at a minimum, it will require expending additional effort to parse. Just because it's valid doesn't make it good.
Yes, in an ideal world, people wouldn't make mistakes, and everyone would do exactly what they intended to do and nothing else. Unfortunately, we don't live in that world, nor do I think we are likely to inhabit any world like it any time soon. If we accept this, it stands to reason that we should look at what can be done to reduce the likelihood of mistakes.
And let's face it, it's a lot harder to accidentally add a statement to the wrong level if every level is laid out with curly braces, begin
/end
, or whichever other construct the particular language uses to combine statements into compound statements. It's far easier to accidentally (and without noticing it afterward) go from
if (x)
y();
z();
to
if (x)
y();
y2();
z();
than from
if (x)
{
y();
}
z();
to
if (x)
{
y();
}
y2();
z();
when you meant to make both the y()
and y2()
calls conditioned on x
. No matter what tooling you're using, that last example immediately stands out as "it just looks plain wrong", whereas the variant without the curly braces doesn't. Likewise, if you were to write
if (x)
{
y();
}
y2();
z();
(correct indentation, but the y2()
call placed in the wrong spot) it is also immediately clear that the call to y2()
is not conditioned on x
, even though that was the original intent.
If we can make syntactically valid but semantically wrong code actually look wrong, it greatly reduces the risk of semantically wrong code slipping through the cracks. The compiler will already catch things that are syntactically wrong, but it can't catch those things where what the programmer wrote is valid, just not what was intended.
Indeed, this "costs" a few extra lines for the braces (or equivalent keywords in languages that don't derive basic syntactical elements from B, such as for example Python or SQL). But if your code is so deeply nested, with so many separate short snippets, that this is actually a problem, maybe you should consider refactoring it anyway. Individual preferences aside, it's not like we're still using VT52 terminals as our primary display devices.
2 comment threads