The cult of 140

Apparently, women don’t understand the offside rule. At least that’s according to some TV sports pundit who lost his job recently.

I don’t really understand the offside rule either, so I wrote this on my facebook page in response to the news.

The key to understanding the offside rule is that it doesn’t really matter what the rule is.

Make up any old rubbish, like “Goal keepers must be pipe smokers” and call that the offside rule. It is just as meaningful.

Meh. Hardly my best work, but I thought it just about good enough to post it on my twitter feed too.

That’s where I met… the cult.

FlĆ¼genWeb, SpƤcecode, TwitZƶne, Ass Mƶde

Set in stone.

Twitter is famously limited to 140 characters. My message went over that limit by 78 characters. What to do?

“If it’s too long for 140 characters, make it a blog post and post a message with a link.”
Okay, but really? “Read my hilarious thought on the offside rule! http://bit.ly/āˆšįŗæā„–ā„¦” (75 characters to spare! Yay!)

So my twitter readers would see my teaser message. A few may even be bothered enough to follow the link, but they would be disappointed to have made the effort of loading the page only to get such a short message.

Remember, Twitter is for short messages like mine. What can I do keeping within the Twitter ecosystem?

“The 140 limit forces people to concentrate on what’s important. Cut out the flab!”
Okay. I started with the counter at 78 characters over. Time to start trimming down until it fits. I finally got it down to…

“The key to the offside rule is that it doesn’t matter what it is. Making up some rubbish and calling it the offside rule is as meaningful.”

It was already a rather poor piece of writing when I started. Now, I couldn’t even find space for the bit about pipe smoking goal keepers. Just take it away and put it out of it’s misery!

So I’d like to challenge the 140 character advocates out there. Can you improve on my effort? Take my original message, trim it down to 140 characters and post it as a comment.

<Update> An anonymous commenter came up with
“It doesn’t matter what the offside rule is. It could be any old rubbish like “Goal keepers must be pipe smokers”. It is just as meaningful.”.
That’s probably the best the could have been done within the 140 limit, but this is the point; Is this shorter version better than my original version? In my biased opinion, no. The whole point of my message was about understanding the offside rule. Lose that word and it looks like I’m commenting on football itself.

It seems there isn’t enough room for big complicated words like “understanding”.</Update>

(Pre-emptive snarky comment: I’ve trimmed out all the bad parts of your message. I can’t post it because there’s none left!)

Picture credits:
“little ref” by Richard Boak.
“140” by Gabriela Grosseck.

reddit’d (Followup to ‘Construct Something Else’)

Fame at last! Fame at last!

My last piece, “Construct something else!” got a bit of attention when someone posted it on reddit.That was unexpected.

Remember the rule; If you publish something that’s a bad idea in hindsight, post a “clarification” article claiming you’ve been misunderstood and that you never thought it was a good idea in the first place. Then hide in the shower.

You see, I think I’ve been misunderstood. I was reading stackoverflow and I found the question asking about c# constructors. There was the comment from Eric Lippert, talking about the possibility of implementing this feature, but they were lacking a good reason to undertake the effort. Then I remembered I had exactly what he was looking for, a real-world use case! So I wrote up my experiences in a blog post and left a comment on the stack overflow question.

I thought I was rather clear that I was just providing Mr Lippert with a use case, rather than actually advocating it. Nonetheless, some people mistakenly took my post as advocacy and responded as such. Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to go have a shower.

šŸ™‚

But seriously, I remain of the opinion that implementing pseudo-constructors would be a good thing, but probably not worth the time for Microsoft to implement. But first, a quick aside to clarify (there’s that word again) how it could work. Just so we’re all clear (!) on what it is I’m advocating.

A pseudo-constructor would essentially be a static factory function. Call it, and it returns an instance of the class, perhaps using a private real-constructor inside. The only difference being that it can be called using the new operator. The compiler sees that the parameters match the pseudo-constructor signature and it generates code to call that static function instead. From a MSIL/CIL view, it’s just like a normal static function.

So why would this be a good thing?

Changing the interface without changing caller code.

This is the reason I raised in my original post. If version 1 of a DLL has a real-constructor, version 2 can use a pseudo-constructor in it’s place. The caller code would have to be recompiled, but the C# code would not need to be modified.

Intellisenseā„¢ simplification.

How many times have you needed an instance of particular class, typed new ClassName, only for Intellisenseā„¢ to show that no constructors are available. You slap your forehead and remember that this class uses static factory functions instead. If these could be called with a new operator, they would all appear in the same list.

(I suspect this was the original motivation for considering the feature in the first place.)

That’s it?

There’s a few good reasons not to make this change, which I’ll briefly discuss. Enjoy.

They won’t be real constructors.
(Thanks to reddit user “grauenwolf”.)

Sometimes, only a real constructor will do. When writing a subclass constructor, you can call the base class’s constructor just before the first opening brace using the base keyword. This would have to be a real constructor call, as you can’t just decide which base class to use at run-time.

Adding pseudo constructors doesn’t take away real constructors, but it might lead to confusion when people see that a base classes constructors have gone missing.

You don’t need it.
(Thanks to “Anthony” for commenting on the original post.)

You can do all this by making a class full of delegate instances. The constructor can select what functions to fill into those delegates at run-time. Add some [Obsolete] attributes so anyone writing new code will code against the new preferred objects.


So I don’t think this new feature would break anything, except it would be taking up the time of the clever people at Microsoft. Nice to have, but we don’t need it.

If you’re in the mood for discussing future directions of the C# language, please take at look at my earlier piece on destructors for structs. I’m interested in any thoughts on the subject or any reasons why it wouldn’t work.

I hope I’ve gained a little bit of an readership from this experience. If you’re reading this, please leave a comment. Without comments, we’re just bumping around in a closed system and tending towards entropy. Here’s some nice charts for a bit of insight on the reddit people.


Picture credit:
“The Walk of Fame” by flickr user Storm Crypt.
Readership charts by blogger.

About This Blog

Jawohl! I am Wilhelm von Hackensplat, software developer and evil genius. This is my blog.

I’ll be writing on software development, otherwise known as that-which-pays-the-bills. I’ve been doing this for most of my life, ever since mother Hackensplat bought a Sinclair ZX81 all those years ago.

I have tried blogging before, but I found myself really dissatisfied with the structure of a blog, specifically the normal view of showing the most recent posts first. To me, that’s not the most important thing. I want a casual visitor to bask in my unaccountable brilliance and see my best stuff.

This is my main beef with blogging software, that it doesn’t make for a very good document publishing system. There is a layout for blogs, and thou shalt not deviate from the norm. What I’d like is a document management system that includes a capable blogging sub-system. I would write my own perfect system, but time is short and life is hard. So back to blogging, here I am.

GenieƟen!


Picture credits:
Laboratory by tk-link of flickr