Re: Check for redundancy

[Emanuel Berg <embe8573@student.uu.se>]

Andreas Röhler <andreas.roehler@easy-emacs.de> writes:

> Avoiding redundancy is important as it saves time.
> Assume there is a bug in some redundant: fixing this
> would leave the other bug at place.
>
> But it's not about bugs only. Functions might be
> shaped more or less efficient in various regards.
> When optimizing a redundant function, second range
> quality will remain.

Yes, if there is a tool to identify those that'd
be great.

Only there are hundreds of thousands of programs and
software components that have been developed without
such and those work just fine.

This tells me this is (would be) one for the toolbox
that can certainly be interesting to try out but it
isn't the new combination key or spoke key.

The most important thing for an aspiring programmer is
still, and will always be, to write code every day, as
much as possible, and as good as possible, and then do
it over and over at a higher and higher level.

Myself I have 281 Elisp defuns. I'm happy to try any
tool that will identify how many of those are in fact
redundant. If say 50 are then I'd start worrying.
I'd change my mind on this. If ten are, I'd be cool.
But I'd fix them nonetheless so yes, it'd be useful,
just not that big a factor.

-- 
underground experts united
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573