From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, TO_NO_BRKTS_PCNT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,21bbcb8deeeab673 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: "Chris Sparks (Mr. Ada)" Subject: Re: Ada95 Pretty-Printers/Coding styles Date: 1997/06/17 Message-ID: <33A69BB8.1B4A@aisf.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 249081121 Sender: Ada programming language Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU Organization: McDonnell Douglas Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-06-17T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Robert responded with: > Thankyou Chris for giving a nice example of the attitude that I find > unacceptable, and which we would not tolerate for a moment at ACT. > It does not work at all to rely on pretty printing to solve the > problem of divergent styles, because you still have people writing > in their own style, and not being happy working on other people's > code, so you get bad *code ownership* phenomena. Well I can relate to this statement. If a programmer isn't as persnickedy (sp?) as I am, then looking at their code can be a chore in itself! The most offensive Ada code I have seen have come from "C/C++" programmers who are forced to use Ada. Yuch! > Furthermore, style is much more than a set of mechanical rules wwhich can > be enforced by an automaton, so you will never get realy consistent style > (such as is achieved in the GNAT sources) by this approach. Well you may have a point here. I have seen your "sources" and found them easy to follow. Your organization is as persnickedy as I am. On no! :-) > To get a really cooperative environment, in which everyone looks at every > one else's code and there is as little sense of code ownership as possible, > it is essential that everyone buy into a common style. It is definitely > possible to come close to the ideal of 100% working in unison, and it is > a desirable goal. We can abstract this concept a little further in that most programmers will code to a established well-defined (personal) style. I don't believe that they would change their style continually in their software. Once a look-and- feel has be attained, then most programmers stick with it for years. Look at the Ada 83 LRM's style. I programmed in upper case for a long time. Now I can't even look at uppercased code. I say to myself "Why is this person shouting?!" :-) Anyway, your point is valid. Maybe what I am so uptight about coding standards may not lie in the standards itself, but in the process itself. > I certainly understand Chris's attitude here, since I have run into it often > before, and have seen situations in which companies tolerate this kind of > insistance on personal style. Yes, you may regard my attitude's as extreme, > so you probably would not like to come to work for ACT, but we have certainly > found that lots of people get over their initial irritation at an unfamiliar > style, and end up buying into it with enthusiasm (and the ACT engineers are > all in this category!) I am used to abiding to a company's coding standard. I may like my own, however, I am paid to do what they want! With regards to "coming to work for ACT", I would LOVE the opportunity to work for your company, coding styles and all. :-) I am a firm believer that once we get past what is expected (code look and feel) than we can get down to some serious programming. I always say that what is most important is the code. If it isn't right, no amount of style is going to help it! Later... Chris Sparks