programming

Previously, we talked about potential issues switch-case can cause, and what to do when the type affects only data, or behavior, too.

Now that we are switch-case ninjas, we can go even further and see how to tackle when the type code and the behavior change dynamically at runtime.

Previously in the series, we saw that AI tools have limitations. We also discussed maximizing our productivity by using them to write code - without shooting ourselves in our legs.

In this post, we’ll cover one more piece of the puzzle: how they can (or can’t) help us to refactor.

In the previous post, we saw the limitations of AI developer tools. Yes, they are not perfect. However, they are still able to improve our productivity significantly.

This time, we’ll dive into how we can effectively use them to achieve a better development experience, higher-quality output, and faster delivery.

We’ve previously dived into the complexities and maintenance challenges of switch-case and saw a refactoring technique for simple scenarios.

Today, we’ll raise the bar a bit and focus on situations when our type code affects behavior. We’ll use pets to demonstrate the concepts.

In the previous part, we had an overview of why switch-case could be hard to maintain. This part will focus on the simplest scenario: when type-code only affects data, not behavior. We’ll do this by modeling a pizzeria.

In a nutshell: switch-case makes code harder to maintain. We’ll understand the reasons to eliminate it and see when its usage is justified.