These are general purpose hygienic rules that transcend the language or platform rules. Programming language is a form of communication, targeting computer systems, but also your colleagues and your future self, so respecting these rules is just like washing your hands after going to the bathroom.
There's a whole science on typography which says that people lose their focus when the line of text is too wide, a long line makes it difficult to gauge where the line starts or ends and it makes it difficult to continue on the next line below it, as your eyes have to move a lot from the right to the left. It also makes it difficult to scan for important details.
In typography, the optimal line length is considered to be somewhere between 50 and 70 chars.
In programming, we've got indentation, so it's not feasible to impose a 60 chars length for lines. 80 chars is usually acceptable, but not in Scala, because in Scala we use a lot of closures and if you want long and descriptive names for functions and classes, well, 80 chars is way too short.
120 chars, as IntelliJ IDEA is configured by default, may be too wide on the other hand. Yes, I know that we've got 16:9 wide monitors, but this doesn't help readability and with shorter lines we can put these wide monitors to good use when doing side-by-side diffs. And with long lines it takes effort to notice important details that happen at the end of those lines.
So as a balance:
- strive for 80 chars as the soft limit and if it gets ugly,
- then 100 chars is enough, except for ...
- function signatures, which can get really ugly if limited
On the other hand, anything that goes beyond 120 chars is an abomination.
IDEs and SBT plugins can be of great help, however if you're thinking about using one to automatically format your code, beware.
You won’t find a plugin that is able to infer the developer’s intent, since that requires a human-like understanding of the code and would be near impossible to make. The purpose of proper indentation and formatting isn't to follow some rigid rules set upon you in a cargo-cult way, but to make the code more logical, more readable, more approachable. Indentation is actually an art form, which is not awful since all you need is a nose for awful code and the urge of fixing it. And it is in the developer's job description to make sure that his code doesn't stink.
So automated means are fine, BUT BE CAREFUL to not ruin other people's carefully formatted code, otherwise I'll slap you in prose.
Lets think about what I said - if the line is too long, how is a plugin supposed to break it? Lets talk about this line (real code):
val dp = new DispatchPlan(new Set(filteredAssets), start = startDate, end = endDate, product, scheduleMap, availabilityMap, Set(activationIntervals.get), contractRepository, priceRepository)In most cases, a plugin will just do truncation and I've seen a lot of these in practice:
val dp = new DispatchPlan(Set(filteredAssets), start =
startDate, end = endDate, product, scheduleMap, availabilityMap,
Set(activationIntervals), contractRepository, priceRepository)Now that's not readable, is it? I mean, seriously, that looks like barf. And that's exactly the kind of output I see coming from people relying on plugins to work. We could also have this version:
val dp = new DispatchPlan(
Set(filteredAssets),
startDate,
endDate,
product,
scheduleMap,
availabilityMap,
Set(activationIntervals),
contractRepository,
priceRepository
)Looks much better. But truth is, this isn't so good in other instances. Like say we've got a line that we want to break:
val result = service.something(param1, param2, param3, param4).map(transform)Now placing those parameters on their own line is awful, no matter how you deal with it:
// awful because that transform call is not visible
val result = service.something(
param1,
param2,
param3,
param4).map(transform)
// awful because it breaks the logical flow
val result = service.something(
param1,
param2,
param3,
param4
).map(transform)This would be much better:
val result = service
.something(param1, param2, param3, param4)
.map(transform)Now that's better, isn't it? Of course, sometimes that call is so long that this doesn't cut it. So you need to resort to a temporary value of some sort, e.g...
val result = {
val instance =
object.something(
myAwesomeParam1,
otherParam2,
someSeriousParam3,
anEvenMoreSoParam4,
lonelyParam5,
catchSomeFn6,
startDate7
)
for (x <- instance) yield
transform(x)
}Of course, sometimes if the code stinks so badly, you need to get into refactoring - as in, maybe too many parameters are too much for a function ;-)
And we are talking strictly about line lengths - once we get into other issues, things get even more complicated. So really, you won't find a plugin that does this analysis and that can make the right decision for you.
Ideally functions should only be a couple of lines long. If the lines get too big, then we need to break them into smaller functions and give them a name.
Note that in Scala we don't necessarily have to make such intermediate functions available in other scopes, the purpose here is to primarily aid readability, so in Scala we can do inner-functions to break logic into pieces.
Spelling errors are freakishly annoying, interrupting a reader's flow. Use a spell-checker. Intelligent IDEs have built-in spell-checkers. Note the underlined spelling warnings and fix them.
"There are only two hard things in Computer Science: cache invalidation and naming things." -- Phil Karlton
We've got three guidelines here:
- give descriptive names, but don't go overboard, four words is a little too much already
- you can be terse in naming if the type / purpose can be easily inferred from the immediate context, or if there's already an established convention
- if going the descriptive route, don't do bullshit words that are meaningless
For example this is acceptable:
for (p <- people) yield
transformed(p)We can see that p is a person from the immediate context, so a short
one letter name is OK. This is also acceptable because i is an
established convention to use as an index:
for (i <- 0 until limit) yield ???This is in general not acceptable, because usually with tuples the naming of the collection doesn't reflect well what's contained (if you haven't given those elements a name, then as a consequence the collection itself is going to have a bad name):
someCollection.map(_._2)
Implicit parameters on the other hand are OK with short names, because being passed implicitly, we don't care about them unless they are missing:
def query(id: Long)(implicit ec: ExecutionContext, c: WSClient): Future[Response]This is not acceptable because the name is utterly meaningless, even if there's a clear attempt at being descriptive:
def processItems(people: Seq[Person]) = ???It's not acceptable because the naming of this function indicates a
side-effect (process is a verb indicating a command), yet it doesn't
describe what we are doing with those people. The Items suffix is
meaningless, because we might have said processThingy,
processRows, processStuff and it would still say exactly the same
thing - absolutely nothing. It also increases visual clutter, as more
words is more text to read and meaningless words are just noise.
Properly chosen descriptive names - good. Bullshit names - bad.