From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dan Cross Message-Id: <200108192057.QAA24441@augusta.math.psu.edu> To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] Sam question In-Reply-To: Cc: Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 16:57:19 -0400 Topicbox-Message-UUID: e2e6adb6-eac9-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 In article you write: >OK, so 8 space tabs, ridiculously long variable names, unnecessary >nesting, hungarian notation, and insuffcient use of subfunctions >blows the 80 column limit too quickly. > >So use more columns! When did you last use a VT100? Probably six years ago (really!), but I did use a laser printer on Friday. One reason the 80 column limit still makes sense is that one can print the code out with a minimum of hassle (no special pretty printers or whatever) and it'll be readable enough to review. >As for clarity, a consistent style is all that is required. Within bounds, it >doesn't matter so much what the style is. The assistance it gives in >reading other people's code is immense. I think it's the, ``within bounds'' part that throws so many people off. Things like ``Hungarian notation'' just tend to obscure a program, and even though my company's coding standards specifically ban it, the windows programmers put it in anyway. How terribly frustrating. I agree that consistency is important, but consistent unreadable garbage isn't too helpful. Something I've noticed is that programmers who don't take the time and care to produce a *readable* program are the ones who write bad software. Someone who actually puts some effort into the presentation is, in my experience, more likely to produce a correct, working and maintainable program than someone who doesn't. >Programmers should be flexible enough to communicate in the local >dialect whether it be OTB, or something widly different. Sure, as long as the local dialect is reasonable, or should I say readable? :-) - Dan C.