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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID 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: (Stephen Garriga) Subject: Re: Ada95 Pretty-Printers/Coding styles Date: 1997/06/18 Message-ID: <33a7aa2a.3327429@news.logica.co.uk>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 249286603 References: <33A54D07.4E14@aisf.com> Organization: Logica UK Ltd Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-06-18T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: On 16 Jun 1997 14:19:07 -0400, dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) wrote: >Chris says > >>I feel that enforcing strict coding styles on individuals is >unproductive and a source of irritation. {SNIP}..... > >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. There is a big difference between people having their own syle, and not wanting to work on other peoples 'differently styled' code. That's like saying you can't enjoy reading a book that you did not write! > >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. Yes, but much of what causes problems is personal layout options; tabs vs. spaces, indent levels, variable case etc. > >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. It is the nature of my work that I have to look at many peoples code, each (suposedly) following a set of standards and conforming to a style guide, however there is still a variety in 'style'. There are often many ways of doing the same thing, unless you have every coder incapable of aberent/creative thought (i.e. all coders are (mentally) identical clones or brainwashed to the same end) you will still end up with different 'styles'. > >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 would rather code were clear (self documenting) than following a rigid set of rules. People are individuals and should be allowed to act as such. I for one would not work for a company that insisted I wore a suit every day, or that I must be clean-shaven. By the same principle I could not work for a company that wanted me to be a trained dog to jump through hoops or a mindless automaton! Steve Garriga garriga@logica.com type OPINION is access PERSONAL_THOUGHTS_AND_BIAS; OPINION_STATED : new OPINION := not LOGICA.OPINION; Logica UK Ltd. +44 171 637 9111 http://www.logica.com