Oy!! At 55:50, one of my only complaints about your choice of words comes again. Must, is required, needs to, mean you must do this or your code won't compile or will throw fatal exception when you try to run. What if something is a good idea, and will make your code run faster, be easier to read, or will catch more possible mistakes at compile time rather than runtime? I would say you SHOULD do these things, even tho they are NOT required, because life will be better, other programmers on your team will be happier, your life will be better. You SHOULD say SHOULD for those things, and for things that are required or nothing will work, you SHOULD say MUST or NEED TO.
When you use SHOULD to mean MUST, IS REQUIRED, HAVE TO, then what do we call these things that are good ideas or better ways to do things? You can say "You are not required to do this, but it is better to do such thing." That is a lot more words than SHOULD which you can say, shorter and easier to read and follow like lambda expressions, if you don't waste the word for things you MUST and NEED to do.
I have only written a few and they are on this forum somewhere. They took a good ten minutes to write
Jesse Silverman wrote:. . . I hadn't seen any mock questions prepared by you . . .
Jesse Silverman wrote:My problem is that I literally have to know who wrote a mock exam question to know which answer to select due to the regrettable inconsistency in language usage that is the subject of my tirade.
Campbell Ritchie wrote:Yes, I see the problem; as I said, should is a sort of weasel word. It also changes its meaning if you cross the Pond.