The program is pretty simple: it takes a string and replaces the vowels with '_' then prints the reversed string. I am just looking at ways to make my code more professional and would like some tips.
import java.util.Scanner;
public class reverse_string {
public static void main (String[] args){
Scanner scan = new Scanner(System.in);
String input, reverseInput;
String legolas = new String();
System.out.println("Enter any input");
input = scan.nextLine();
StringBuilder newString = new StringBuilder(input);
System.out.println("The data you entered is: "+input);
for (int i =0; i <input.length();i++){
if (testIfVowel(input.charAt(i))){
newString.setCharAt(i,'_');
}
else{
newString.setCharAt(i, input.charAt(i));
}
}
for(int i = input.length()-1;i>=0;i--){
legolas = legolas +input.charAt(i);
}
reverseInput=reverseOrder(newString);
System.out.println("Your old data was: "+input+"\nYour new data is: "+newString +"\nYour old data in reverse is: "+legolas+"\nYour new data in reverse is: "+ reverseInput);
}
public static boolean testIfVowel(char x){
if(x =='a'||x=='A'||x=='e'||x=='E'||x=='i'||x=='I'||x=='o'||x=='O'||x=='u'||x=='U'){
return true;
}
else{
return false;
}
}
public static String reverseOrder(StringBuilder x){
String string= new String();
for(int i = x.length()-1;i>=0;i--){
string = string + x.charAt(i);
}
return string;
}
}
I would suggest that your logic is unnecessarily complex. For instance, do you really need a testIfVowel
method that is only used one time? I doubt it.
I'd do something like this (pseudocode):
resultString = '';
for (i = 0; i < length(s); i++) {
if ("AEIOUaeiou".indexOf(s[i]) != 0) {
resultString = '_' + resultString;
} else {
resultString = s[i] + resultString;
}
}
(You could do this in any language.)
Notice how the test-for-vowels is now simple and obvious, clearly working for both upper- and lower-case versions. And, how the "reversed string" is created, one character at a time, simply by inserting the new character at the front of the initially-empty resultString.
Perhaps most importantly (to me), this version "reads very easily." I don't have to look at much code to desk-check that it will work. It, if you will, "gets straight to the point."
Much cleaner, I think ...