Timeline for Linq me a FizzBuzz
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 14, 2015 at 23:45 | comment | added | recursive | That's fair enough. | |
| Jan 14, 2015 at 16:50 | comment | added | Hogan | @recursive - I think the code stands for itself, trying to explain why I think it is simpler is pointless. Each person will find it simpler or not. I'm not saying it is better because it is simpler -- that is different issue. But I do think that half as many lines and 5 less object names is simpler in this case. There are other cases where reducing the lines and number of names makes something more complex... but in my opinion not in this case. | |
| Jan 14, 2015 at 1:29 | comment | added | recursive | I'm not talking about the MSIL compilation. I'm talking about the code. It is certainly fewer statements, but I don't think that makes it any easier to read. Statements aren't always bad. They do make it pretty easy to add breakpoints, for example. | |
| Jan 13, 2015 at 23:47 | comment | added | moarboilerplate | Simple in terms of what it compiles down to? Probably not. However it's different from the top answer because the method is inline so you can read it right there, and the method body is one line instead of 4 so you don't need to use brackets and semicolons inside the lambda. | |
| Jan 13, 2015 at 18:48 | comment | added | recursive | Why do you think this is simpler than the top voted answer? I don't believe it's significantly simpler. | |
| Jan 13, 2015 at 18:45 | history | answered | Hogan | CC BY-SA 3.0 |